Mixing
Single-entity partitions in Azure Table
In an Azure table, having smaller partitions helps with load balancing Azure Table service. In my use case, there is no dependency between individual entities, whether I retrieve them or (re)write them. I am considering having single-entity partitions (that is, each partition would have one entity).
There is nothing I can find in Microsoft documentation (basically, Table Storage Design Guide and further literature referenced there) that would indicate down sides of this approach for my use case. I wonder if anyone here has had negative experience with this or similar approach. Thank you!
azure-table-storage asked Nov 21 '18 at 22:00
Simon HawkinSimon Hawkin
10325
add a comment |
In an Azure table, having smaller partitions helps with load balancing Azure Table service. In my use case, there is no dependency between individual entities, whether I retrieve them or (re)write them. I am considering having single-entity partitions (that is, each partition would have one entity).
There is nothing I can find in Microsoft documentation (basically, Table Storage Design Guide and further literature referenced there) that would indicate down sides of this approach for my use case. I wonder if anyone here has had negative experience with this or similar approach. Thank you!
azure-table-storage asked Nov 21 '18 at 22:00
Simon HawkinSimon Hawkin
10325
add a comment |
In an Azure table, having smaller partitions helps with load balancing Azure Table service. In my use case, there is no dependency between individual entities, whether I retrieve them or (re)write them. I am considering having single-entity partitions (that is, each partition would have one entity).
There is nothing I can find in Microsoft documentation (basically, Table Storage Design Guide and further literature referenced there) that would indicate down sides of this approach for my use case. I wonder if anyone here has had negative experience with this or similar approach. Thank you!
azure-table-storage asked Nov 21 '18 at 22:00
Simon HawkinSimon Hawkin
10325
In an Azure table, having smaller partitions helps with load balancing Azure Table service. In my use case, there is no dependency between individual entities, whether I retrieve them or (re)write them. I am considering having single-entity partitions (that is, each partition would have one entity).
There is nothing I can find in Microsoft documentation (basically, Table Storage Design Guide and further literature referenced there) that would indicate down sides of this approach for my use case. I wonder if anyone here has had negative experience with this or similar approach. Thank you!
azure-table-storage azure-table-storage asked Nov 21 '18 at 22:00
Simon HawkinSimon Hawkin
10325
asked Nov 21 '18 at 22:00
Simon HawkinSimon Hawkin
10325
asked Nov 21 '18 at 22:00
Simon HawkinSimon Hawkin
10325
asked Nov 21 '18 at 22:00
Simon HawkinSimon Hawkin
10325
asked Nov 21 '18 at 22:00
Simon HawkinSimon Hawkin
10325
10325
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The only disadvantage of using single-entity partitions is that you can't leverage EntityGroupTransaction to insert/update entities in batch, which requires entities in the batch having the same Partition Key.
EntityGroupTransaction may achieve better performance than inserting/updating entities one by one, and operations within a batch are processed atomically.
answered Nov 22 '18 at 2:06
Zhaoxing Lu - MicrosoftZhaoxing Lu - Microsoft
3,528721
Thank you very much, Zhaoxing Lu, for a quick answer! I have accepted it. Indeed, my user case as well as expected future use cases would not involve entity group transactions. I plan to go with single entity partitions.
– Simon Hawkin
Nov 23 '18 at 9:01
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53421056%2fsingle-entity-partitions-in-azure-table%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The only disadvantage of using single-entity partitions is that you can't leverage EntityGroupTransaction to insert/update entities in batch, which requires entities in the batch having the same Partition Key.
EntityGroupTransaction may achieve better performance than inserting/updating entities one by one, and operations within a batch are processed atomically.
answered Nov 22 '18 at 2:06
Zhaoxing Lu - MicrosoftZhaoxing Lu - Microsoft
3,528721
Thank you very much, Zhaoxing Lu, for a quick answer! I have accepted it. Indeed, my user case as well as expected future use cases would not involve entity group transactions. I plan to go with single entity partitions.
– Simon Hawkin
Nov 23 '18 at 9:01
add a comment |
The only disadvantage of using single-entity partitions is that you can't leverage EntityGroupTransaction to insert/update entities in batch, which requires entities in the batch having the same Partition Key.
EntityGroupTransaction may achieve better performance than inserting/updating entities one by one, and operations within a batch are processed atomically.
answered Nov 22 '18 at 2:06
Zhaoxing Lu - MicrosoftZhaoxing Lu - Microsoft
3,528721
Thank you very much, Zhaoxing Lu, for a quick answer! I have accepted it. Indeed, my user case as well as expected future use cases would not involve entity group transactions. I plan to go with single entity partitions.
– Simon Hawkin
Nov 23 '18 at 9:01
add a comment |
The only disadvantage of using single-entity partitions is that you can't leverage EntityGroupTransaction to insert/update entities in batch, which requires entities in the batch having the same Partition Key.
EntityGroupTransaction may achieve better performance than inserting/updating entities one by one, and operations within a batch are processed atomically.
answered Nov 22 '18 at 2:06
Zhaoxing Lu - MicrosoftZhaoxing Lu - Microsoft
3,528721
The only disadvantage of using single-entity partitions is that you can't leverage EntityGroupTransaction to insert/update entities in batch, which requires entities in the batch having the same Partition Key.
EntityGroupTransaction may achieve better performance than inserting/updating entities one by one, and operations within a batch are processed atomically.
answered Nov 22 '18 at 2:06
Zhaoxing Lu - MicrosoftZhaoxing Lu - Microsoft
3,528721
answered Nov 22 '18 at 2:06
Zhaoxing Lu - MicrosoftZhaoxing Lu - Microsoft
3,528721
answered Nov 22 '18 at 2:06
Zhaoxing Lu - MicrosoftZhaoxing Lu - Microsoft
3,528721
answered Nov 22 '18 at 2:06
Zhaoxing Lu - MicrosoftZhaoxing Lu - Microsoft
3,528721
3,528721
Thank you very much, Zhaoxing Lu, for a quick answer! I have accepted it. Indeed, my user case as well as expected future use cases would not involve entity group transactions. I plan to go with single entity partitions.
– Simon Hawkin
Nov 23 '18 at 9:01
add a comment |
Thank you very much, Zhaoxing Lu, for a quick answer! I have accepted it. Indeed, my user case as well as expected future use cases would not involve entity group transactions. I plan to go with single entity partitions.
– Simon Hawkin
Nov 23 '18 at 9:01
Thank you very much, Zhaoxing Lu, for a quick answer! I have accepted it. Indeed, my user case as well as expected future use cases would not involve entity group transactions. I plan to go with single entity partitions.
– Simon Hawkin
Nov 23 '18 at 9:01
Thank you very much, Zhaoxing Lu, for a quick answer! I have accepted it. Indeed, my user case as well as expected future use cases would not involve entity group transactions. I plan to go with single entity partitions.
– Simon Hawkin
Nov 23 '18 at 9:01
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53421056%2fsingle-entity-partitions-in-azure-table%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
