accumulo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Terry P." <texpi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: What priority for purge filter
Date Mon, 09 Dec 2013 21:18:35 GMT
Thanks Billie and Christopher, sounds like I should have the purge iterator
run after the VersioningIterator.

Keith, uh oh, I was not aware that not all compactions will see the entire
row.  That sounds like it could be bad for my case!  Here is the original
thread that you helped me with as background:

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-user/201311.mbox/%3CCAGUtCHryW3RR9PF5BAD+psxE-dswL9FyOGVv5Mn_Wj00o2mxig@mail.gmail.com%3E

We only have 10-12 k/v pairs per row -- is that a factor? Can you explain
the nuances with respect to when a compaction won't see the entire row?

Thanks,
Terry



On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Keith Turner <keith@deenlo.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Terry P. <texpilot@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Greetings all,
>> With Accumulo v1.4.2, we have a purge filter/iterator that extents
>> RowFilter and I have a question about what priority it should be
>> implemented with. I see the default VersioningIterator runs at priority 20.
>>
>> Our purge iterator is designed to suppress (scan time) or remove (majc or
>> minc compactions) rows based on the value in a column. Is it more efficient
>> to run our purge iterator at a higher priority than the VersioningIterator,
>> or does it
>>
>
> Are you aware that not all compactions will see the entire row?
>
>
>> really matter? Our VersioningIterator maxVersions is set to the default
>> of 1 which is what we want/need.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Terry
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message