Personally I would tag the objects with 2i (secondary index) headers containing a unique value to identify a user. That would would make it quite trivial to retrieve all the keys belonging to one user without having to do a full bucket scan. I would also store the objects in one bucket, or possibly one bucket per object type if that is something that fits your use case.
I have no idea how 2i would work out with 200m keys. From personal experience I can say that querying an index of tens of thousands of objects and returning a list of keys made up of several thousand is very fast. /F ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Izhar Ravid [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 5:07 PM To: riak-users Subject: List keys and multiple buckets Hi, Does the bucket name have any affect on the list-keys process? Assuming I wish to store user information for some 200M users, and create a bucket per user. Each user bucket will contain several dozen objects. - Will list-keys on such a user bucket be a reasonable action? - Is list-keys isolated to a bucket? - Is it reasonable to expect Riak to hold 200M buckets? Kind regards, Izhar. _______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com _______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
