Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 21:01:15 +0000 (GMT+00:00)
From: Billie J Rinaldi <billie.j.rinaldi@ugov.gov>
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Message-ID: 
 <602587878.365959.1340398875974.JavaMail.root@linzimmb04o.imo.intelink.gov>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOiJXP6yKriSXjv6BvfooJAp3Z5BdPogaq1QSnBj4RvaLgPAXg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Should session-specific iterators appear on config output?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Friday, June 22, 2012 4:35:15 PM, "David Medinets" <david.medinets@gmail.com> wrote:
> I created a table with no iterators so all versions of a key were
> stored. And I entered the same value three times. A scan shows the
> three records. Then I attached a scan-only session-only
> VersioningIterator to that table. The next scan showed only one value.
> Perfect! But when I looked at the table configuration with 'config',
> no iterators were listed. Does it make sense to display session-only
> iterators also?

Currently the only way to see a shell's scan iterators is with "info -v".  It seems like it would make sense to make it easier to find that information, although I'm not sure if config is the appropriate place.  The scan iterators do not have to be stored in zookeeper, so properties like those displayed by config are never created for them.  Perhaps we could display the scan iterator information you get with "info -v" after the normal config properties when you use "config".  We could consider synthesizing fake properties for the scan iterators, but I'd be reluctant to do so.

Billie