I know this is an old thread, but relevant to a recent topic of interest.
My question is:
If the sustained QPS is indeed high, is there any advantage to doing batch
put operations (as it relates to the 'hot tablet' issue with sequential
index values)? In other words, if I am trying to write
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:28 AM, peterk peter.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
What about keynames like:
counter_standard_dbf
counter_standard_clo
or would something like
dbfo01la_counter_standard
clo091b_counter_standard
work better?
I'm thinking of cases where you may use keynames that can
Thanks Nick, I understand now. So I guess the easiest thing to do is
to have a random component in your keynames...at least for apps I'm
considering I don't think I'd have any other way to reasonably ensure
the range of keynames in a given (batch) update were well distributed.
On Feb 19, 11:58
Hi Peter,
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 1:04 PM, peterk peter.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Nick, I understand now. So I guess the easiest thing to do is
to have a random component in your keynames...at least for apps I'm
considering I don't think I'd have any other way to reasonably ensure
the
Say I did a batch update of 500 entities all of the same model...could
this breach the '100s of qps' requirement that could lead to tablets
getting too hot? I've seen benches (http://blog.dantup.com/pi/
bm_put_perf.png) that show 500 entities being batch put in ~4s which
suggests an average put
Hi peterk,
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 2:02 PM, peterk peter.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
Say I did a batch update of 500 entities all of the same model...could
this breach the '100s of qps' requirement that could lead to tablets
getting too hot? I've seen benches (http://blog.dantup.com/pi/
What about keynames like:
counter_standard_dbf
counter_standard_clo
or would something like
dbfo01la_counter_standard
clo091b_counter_standard
work better?
I'm thinking of cases where you may use keynames that can in some way
be constructed/predicted for fast access later.
