accumulo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Embedded Mutations: Is this kind of thing done?
Date Fri, 25 Apr 2014 13:29:43 GMT
Large rows are only an issue if you are going to try to put the entire row
in memory at once. As long as you have small enough entries in the row, and
can treat them individually, you should be fine.

The qualifier is anything that you want to use to determine uniqueness
across keys. So yes, this sounds fine, although possibly not fine grain
enough.

Mike


On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Geoffry Roberts <threadedblue@gmail.com>wrote:

> Interesting, multiple mutations that is.  Are we talking multiples on the
> same row id?
>
> Upon reflection, I realized the embedded thing is nothing special.  I
> think I'll keep adding columns to a single mutation.  This will make for a
> wide row, but I'm not seeing that as a problem.  I am I being naive?
>
> Another question if I may.  As I walk my graph, I must keep track of the
> type of the value being persisted.  I am using the qualifier for this,
> putting in it a URI that indicates the type.  Is this a proper use for the
> qualifier?
>
> Thanks for the discussion
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 11:23 PM, William Slacum <
> wilhelm.von.cloud@accumulo.net> wrote:
>
>> Depending on your table schema, you'll probably want to translate an
>> object graph into multiple mutations.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 8:40 PM, David Medinets <david.medinets@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> If the sub-document changes, you'll need to search the values of every
>>> Accumulo entry?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Geoffry Roberts <threadedblue@gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> The use case is, I am walking a complex object graph and persisting
>>>> what I find there.  Said object graph in my case is always EMF (eclipse
>>>> modeling framework) compliant.  An EMF graph can have in if references
>>>> to--brace yourself--a non-cross document containment reference.  When using
>>>> Mongo, these were persisted as a DBObject embedded into a containing
>>>> DBObject.  I'm trying to decide whether I want to follow suit.
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Can you describe the use case more? Do you know what the purpose for
>>>>> the embedded changes are?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Geoffry Roberts <
>>>>> threadedblue@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am in the throws of converting some(else's) code from MongoDB to
>>>>>> Accumulo.  I am seeing a situation where one DBObject if being embedded
>>>>>> into another DBObject.  I see that Mutation supports a method called
>>>>>> getRow()  that returns a byte array.  I gather I can use this to
achieve a
>>>>>> similar result if I were so inclined.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am I so inclined?  i.e. Is this the way we do things in Accumulo?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DBObject, roughly speaking, is Mongo's counterpart to Mutation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks mucho
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> There are ways and there are ways,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Geoffry Roberts
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Sean
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> There are ways and there are ways,
>>>>
>>>> Geoffry Roberts
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> There are ways and there are ways,
>
> Geoffry Roberts
>

Mime
View raw message