accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: delete + insert case
Date Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:47:00 GMT
Just clarified with Keith in IRC (because I wasn't positive)

This approach will work if you want Accumulo to assign timestamps (e.g. 
not specify them at all in the client). If you can manage that yourself, 
you can try what I suggested in the other message.

Keith Turner wrote:
> There are no order guarantees for two mutations added prior to flush being
> called.   One possible solution it to have two batch writers.  One for
> deletes and flush it first.
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 4:33 PM, z11373<z11373@outlook.com>  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:
>> http://apache-accumulo.1065345.n5.nabble.com/delete-insert-case-tp16375.html
>> Sent from the Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>

Mime
View raw message