[google-appengine] Re: Question on key design: Datastore errors and tablets

2010-02-18 Thread peterk
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. like.._counter_stand

[google-appengine] Re: Question on key design: Datastore errors and tablets

2010-02-19 Thread peterk
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 am,

[google-appengine] Re: Question on key design: Datastore errors and tablets

2010-02-19 Thread peterk
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 rat

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Question on key design: Datastore errors and tablets

2012-05-14 Thread Michael Hermus
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 100

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Question on key design: Datastore errors and tablets

2010-02-19 Thread Nick Johnson (Google)
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:28 AM, peterk 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 in some w

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Question on key design: Datastore errors and tablets

2010-02-19 Thread Nick Johnson (Google)
Hi Peter, On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 1:04 PM, peterk 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 range of keynames in

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Question on key design: Datastore errors and tablets

2010-02-19 Thread Nick Johnson (Google)
Hi peterk, On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 2:02 PM, peterk 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/ > bm_put_perf.png) that show