Mailing-List: contact user-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@accumulo.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <24070BEF0A3F684489AA943FD3439EF2058102AB89@CARRXM06.drn.mil.au>
References: <24070BEF0A3F684489AA943FD3439EF2058102AB89@CARRXM06.drn.mil.au>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:50:07 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAL5zq9Ysq-hx87x-+9osfyyY=0ANY=U_4fgwkFRBwrhsq6HoGg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: TimestampFilter Performance [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
From: Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
To: Accumulo User List <user@accumulo.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Correct, this would be inefficient. Timestamps on Accumulo keys are
there primarily to support multiple versions of the same key. Users
should avoid setting them manually, or using them for other purposes,
without very careful consideration.

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii


On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Dickson, Matt MR
<matt.dickson@defence.gov.au> wrote:
> UNOFFICIAL
>
> Is the TimestampFilter an efficient means of filtering results by time
> ranges?  I have the option of extending the existing rowid's, currently
> pre-fixed with yyyymmdd, to include hhmm also, or make use of the
> TimestampFilter.  In a quick google search someone mentioned that the
> TimestampFilter was inefficient is this correct?
>
> Matt