accumulo-notifications mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "ASF GitHub Bot (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-3959) Confusing wording on BatchScanner javadoc
Date Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:06:48 GMT


ASF GitHub Bot commented on ACCUMULO-3959:

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

> Confusing wording on BatchScanner javadoc
> -----------------------------------------
>                 Key: ACCUMULO-3959
>                 URL:
>             Project: Accumulo
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: docs
>    Affects Versions: 1.6.3, 1.7.0
>            Reporter: Dylan Hutchison
>            Assignee: Dylan Hutchison
>            Priority: Minor
>              Labels: docuentation
>             Fix For: 1.6.4, 1.7.1, 1.8.0
>          Time Spent: 1.5h
>  Remaining Estimate: 0h
> The following sentence in the [BatchScanner Javadoc|]
has confused my colleagues into using Scanners and wondering why performance doesn't scale.
> bq. If you want to lookup a few ranges and expect those ranges to contain a lot of data,
then use the Scanner instead.
> Also regarding this next sentence, from what I see of the BatchScanner it will break
up "large Range objects" that span multiple extents (tablets) into multiple ranges, possibly
one for each tablet.
> bq. Use this when looking up lots of ranges and you expect each range to contain a small
amount of data.
> If the client is okay with unsorted order and it is okay with using multiple threads,
then isn't it always a better decision to use a BatchScanner than regular Scanner?  In the
worst case, one Range over a single row, the BatchScanner will perform the same as a regular
Scanner, ya?

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message