accumulo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William Slacum <>
Subject Re: Using Iterator To Toss Unchanged Values
Date Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:02:12 GMT
It seems like you're asking to create a new VersioningIterator so that
you don't have to use the old one :) The VersioningIterator is pretty
simple, so is there a reason you're not using it? Is there a
difference in behavior with the DropUnchangedValueIterator and the
VersioningIterator if it sees the same Key (save for timestamp) and

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 8:47 AM, David Medinets
<> wrote:
> I'd like to track field level changes for a given record (say,
> author). So I create a table without a VersioningIterator. And I
> insert a few records:
> insert "JOHN" "ATTRIBUTE" "AGE" "34"
> insert "JOHN" "ATTRIBUTE" "HEIGHT" "67"
> The next action is that some ingest process happens and does this:
> insert "JOHN" "ATTRIBUTE" "AGE" "34"
> Since there is no VersioningIterator, there are two AGES both with
> "34" as the value.
> I would like an DropUnchangedValueIterator which removes the last
> inserted record. Removing the last record lets me use the n-1
> timestamp as a LastUpdated value for the key-value pair. But as soon
> as a record is deleted, the previous records are not available
> anymore? What if the timestamp is set to MAX-timestamp so the records
> are sorted backwards? Does that avoid the blocking tombstones? I'd
> look at the source code before asking but I don't have that luxury for
> the next week or two and the question is rattling around my head.
> Naturally, I could query the database before the ingest insert. But,
> referring to slide 19 in Adam's presentation at
>, the
> read-modify-write design is not optimal.

View raw message