Hi Joel,
Marking it "in-memory" is *not* making it all stay or be loaded into
memory. It is just a priority flag to retain blocks of that CF
preferably in the block caches. So it caches it up to the max block
cache size. The rest may cause some churn but that is the best you can
do.
Lars
On Tue,
No, the second table is too large to fit in memory.
On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 11:26 -0800, Stack wrote:
> Mark the second-table in-memory in the schema. And for the first,
> have it not use cache at all. This way, cache should only have
> content from the table that is read. Does the second table
Mark the second-table in-memory in the schema. And for the first,
have it not use cache at all. This way, cache should only have
content from the table that is read. Does the second table fit fully
in memory?
St.Ack
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 2:00 AM, Joel Halbert wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have an
Hi All,
I have an application with two HBase tables.
One table is written to frequently, by a crawler writing web pages.
Another table is written to occasionally (the result of some
processing), but end users read data from this table, and I want the
read response times to be as low as possible.
