accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <>
Subject Re: delete + insert case
Date Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:07:11 GMT
Make sure that your insert has a newer timestamp than the delete does. 
Otherwise, the delete will mask any inserts with smaller timestamps 
until it is compacted away (which is essentially an unknown to you as a 


1. delete A ts=5
2. add A ts=6
3. add B ts=whatever

z11373 wrote:
> Hi,
> I have object abstraction class which delete/add operation will eventually
> translate to calling Accumulo writer.putDelete and writer.put
> To achieve higher throughput, the code will only call writer.flush per
> request (my implementation knows when it's end of request), instead of
> flushing per each delete or add operation.
> In this case we have client request calling my service which for example
> would be:
> 1. delete A
> 2. add A
> 3. add B
> I'd expect the end result would be both row id A and B exists in the table,
> but apparently it's only B. I already checked from the log, the order the
> code being executed is delete first before add operation. However, I guess
> since I call flush after all putDelete and put calls being made, Accumulo
> somehow make putDelete 'win' (in same flush cycle), is that correct? If yes,
> how to workaround this without sacrificing performance.
> Thanks,
> Z
> --
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the Developers mailing list archive at

View raw message