Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-accumulo-notifications-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-accumulo-notifications-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7D04310C9A for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 15:39:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 63865 invoked by uid 500); 11 Dec 2013 15:39:12 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-accumulo-notifications-archive@accumulo.apache.org Received: (qmail 63789 invoked by uid 500); 11 Dec 2013 15:39:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact notifications-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: jira@apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list notifications@accumulo.apache.org Received: (qmail 63769 invoked by uid 99); 11 Dec 2013 15:39:07 -0000 Received: from arcas.apache.org (HELO arcas.apache.org) (140.211.11.28) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 15:39:07 +0000 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 15:39:07 +0000 (UTC) From: "Chris McCubbin (JIRA)" To: notifications@accumulo.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-261) Scanner should support batch size specified in bytes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-261?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13845480#comment-13845480 ] Chris McCubbin commented on ACCUMULO-261: ----------------------------------------- I'm encountering the need for this setting yet again. The situation is that I have an iterator stack that has a high cost to re-seek. Sometimes I want all the results ("bulk") sometimes I only want a few ("top-k"). There really is no good "one size fits all" table.scan.max.memory setting in this case. If I set it small, the re-seek overhead kills performance on the bulk scan. If I set it large I look-ahead way too many entries for the top-k use-case and performance is again poor. Also related is the fact that one can only "setBatchSize" on Scanners and not BatchScanners. > Scanner should support batch size specified in bytes > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Key: ACCUMULO-261 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-261 > Project: Accumulo > Issue Type: New Feature > Components: client > Reporter: John Vines > > Currently the scanner allows a user to set batch size in numbers of entries. Unfortunately this isn't too useful if you have widely varied entry size and you want to keep your internal footprint within a threshold. So we should also allow users to set batch size in maximum number of bytes to bring back. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.1.4#6159)