Very interesting. Thank you
So it sounds like other than being able to quickly truncate
customer-keyspaces, with Cassandra there's no real benefit in keeping
each customer data in a separate keyspace.
We'll suffer on the memory side with all the switching between keyspaces
and we're better off storing all customer data under the same keyspace?
On 9/2/2010 11:29 PM, Aaron Morton wrote:
Create one big happy love in keyspace. Use the key structure to
identify the different clients data.
The is more support for multi tenancy systems but a lot of the memory
configuration is per keyspace/column family, so you cannot run that
many keyspaces.
This page has some more information
http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/MultiTenant
Aaron
On 03 Sep, 2010,at 01:25 PM, Mike Peters
<cassan...@softwareprojects.com> wrote:
Hi,
We're in the process of migrating 4,000 MySQL client databases to
Cassandra. All database schemas are identical.
With MySQL, we used to provision a separate 'database' per each client,
to make it easier to shard and move things around.
Does it make sense to migrate the 4,000 MySQL databases to 4,000
keyspaces in Cassandra? Or should we stick with a single keyspace?
My concerns are -
#1. Will every single node end up with 4k folders under /cassandra/data/?
#2. Performance: Will Cassandra work better with a single keyspace +
lots of keys, or thousands of keyspaces?
-
Granted it's 'cleaner' to have a separate keyspace per each client, but
maybe that's not the best approach with Cassandra.
Thoughts?
