Thanks for replying, J-D. My interpretation is that they try to keep that number low, from page 2: > > "It is our intent that the number of distinct column families in a > table be small (in the hundreds at most)" >
Table 2 provides some actual CF/table numbers. One of the crawl tables has 16 CFs and one of the Google Base tables had 29 CFs. > Could you just store that in the same family? > Yup. I could. Their would be a little weirdness to it, but I think it's doable. It seems like that's the consensus suggestion. > Row locking is rarely a good idea, it doesn't scale and they currently > aren't persisted anywhere except the RS memory (so if it dies...). > Using a single family might be better for you. Thanks for the pointer. Leif