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 BD192179D7 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 19:34:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 65953 invoked by uid 500); 17 Oct 2014 19:34:34 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-accumulo-notifications-archive@accumulo.apache.org Received: (qmail 65914 invoked by uid 500); 17 Oct 2014 19:34:34 -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 65897 invoked by uid 99); 17 Oct 2014 19:34:34 -0000 Received: from arcas.apache.org (HELO arcas.apache.org) (140.211.11.28) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 19:34:34 +0000 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 19:34:34 +0000 (UTC) From: "William Slacum (JIRA)" To: notifications@accumulo.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Comment Edited] (ACCUMULO-3236) Clone table into an existing table 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-3236?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14175429#comment-14175429 ] William Slacum edited comment on ACCUMULO-3236 at 10/17/14 7:34 PM: -------------------------------------------------------------------- Has this discussion moved from "how should we do this" to "what should we call it?" AFAICT we all agree on: 1) snapshotting a table's metadata 2) merging in snapshot from 1 into another table's current state My use of "snapshot" isn't a preference-- historically I've always heard "clone" as being "just a snapshot." I do think "clone" is a composition of the snapshot'ing functionality, table creation, import, but I'm not inclined to make snapshotting a public facing API call for users. was (Author: bills): Has this discussion moved from "how should we do this" to "what should we call it?" AFAICT we all agree on: 1) snapshotting a table's metadata 2) merging in snapshot from 1 into another table's current state My use of "snapshot" isn't a preference-- historically I've always heard "clone" as being "just a snapshot." I do think "clone" composition of the snapshot'ing functionality, table creation, import, but I'm not inclined to make snapshotting a public facing API call for users. > Clone table into an existing table > ---------------------------------- > > Key: ACCUMULO-3236 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3236 > Project: Accumulo > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: client, tserver > Reporter: John Vines > Fix For: 1.7.0 > > > Currently we have the ability to clone a table, which takes all files belonging to an existing table and then makes them owned by a second, brand new table. I think there is a logic extension to this where you can add the files to an already existing table. > One point of concern is if data is unused in existing files due to major compactions of the shared files in the source table. This can be mitigated by either chopping the files (which sorta goes against the idea of cloning) or ensuring that at source table splits exist in the destination table. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)