accumulo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Hugo <m...@piragua.com>
Subject Re: Should I store Long values as String or Long?
Date Tue, 14 May 2013 02:04:15 GMT
Thanks - String it is!


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:

> Well, encoding it might save space, but strings are nice and
> human-readable, especially in the shell, and in the overall scheme of
> things, a string probably isn't really that much larger on disk,
> especially after compression.
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Mike Hugo <mike@piragua.com> wrote:
> > I've been playing around with the LongCombiner on a table that's summing
> up
> > the counts of output of a MapReduce job, very similar to the WordCount
> > example from the user manual.
> >
> > I started out encoding the values using LongCombiner.FIXED_LEN_ENCODER,
> but
> > have noticed that this can lead to some confusion later on downstream.
>  For
> > example, a co-worker was scanning using the shell and was caught off
> guard
> > by the encoded values.  Also, out of the box, the StatsCombiner example
> > works using String values, not Long values so we built a custom piece to
> > essentially do the same thing with Long values instead.
> >
> > It looks to me like most of the examples I've seen just store things are
> > String values, rather than encoding them.  What are the tradeoffs?
>  We're at
> > a point where we could pretty easily switch things to just use strings -
> it
> > seems like that might make things more convenient from a maintenance
> > perspective (human readable values) and would allow us to re-use some
> > existing components (e.g. StatsCombiner).  Any thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mike
>

Mime
View raw message