hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bryan Duxbury (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (HBASE-82) [hbase] VOTE: should row keys be less restrictive than hadoop.io.Text?
Date Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:58:07 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-82?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12569345#action_12569345
] 

Bryan Duxbury commented on HBASE-82:
------------------------------------

I understand that distributing new code is part of MapReduce, but that makes a lot of sense,
because MapReduce is a job-oriented, limited-lifetime process. When it ends, you push out
new code. HBase, on the other hand, should be a long-running process, which makes service
interruptions to add new key types costly, especially if it's being used by multiple applications.


I agree that byte arrays as keys is acceptable. What's the big difference between Text and
a byte array as it is? Just additional logic in the Text class? If we switch to using byte
arrays as keys, we should be prepared to offer convenience overloaded methods to take String
or Text keys which get converted before being sent over the wire. 

If we change keys from Text to byte[], will we also change column family names and qualifiers
in the same way?

> [hbase] VOTE: should row keys be less restrictive than hadoop.io.Text?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-82
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-82
>             Project: Hadoop HBase
>          Issue Type: Wish
>            Reporter: Jim Kellerman
>
> I have heard from several people that row keys in HBase should be less restricted than
hadoop.io.Text.
> What do you think?
> At the very least, a row key has to be a WritableComparable. This would lead to the most
general case being either hadoop.io.BytesWritable or hbase.io.ImmutableBytesWritable. The
primary difference between these two classes is that hadoop.io.BytesWritable by default allocates
100 bytes and if you do not pay attention to the length, (BytesWritable.getSize()), converting
a String to a BytesWritable and vice versa can become problematic. 
> hbase.io.ImmutableBytesWritable, in contrast only allocates as many bytes as you pass
in and then does not allow the size to be changed.
> If we were to change from Text to a non-text key, my preference would be for ImmutableBytesWritable,
because it has a fixed size once set, and operations like get, etc do not have to something
like System.arrayCopy where you specify the number of bytes to copy.
> Your comments, questions are welcome on this issue. If we receive enough feedback that
Text is too restrictive, we are willing to change it, but we need to hear what would be the
most useful thing to change it to as well.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


Mime
View raw message