hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jurriaan Mous <jurm...@jurmo.us>
Subject Re: Async Table API
Date Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:34:54 GMT
> > With a new interface we enable ourselves to rethink a bit of the API to be
> > simpler.
> >
> > I am currently proposing the following methods in the simpler AsyncTable
> > interface:
> > exists(Get): ResponsePromise<Boolean>
> > exists(List<Get>): ResponsePromise<Boolean[]>
> > get(Get): ResponsePromise<Result>
> > get(List<Get>): ResponsePromise<Result[]>
> > mutate(Mutation): ResponsePromise<Void> - Instead of separate Put, Delete,
> > Increment, IncrementValue and Append methods
> > checkAndMutate(byte[], byte[], byte[], CompareOp, byte[], Mutation):
> > ResponsePromise<Void> - Will not accept Append and Increment
> >
> Over in issue, you are thinking 'not accept Append and Increment' because
> they are one-at-a-time-nonce-dependent... Is the above call one-at-a-time?
Indeed. I did this because it seems the current API was designed this way to not allow multiple
nonce calls at once.
> > checkAndMutate(byte[], byte[], byte[], CompareOp, byte[], RowMutations):
> > ResponsePromise<Void> - Will not accept Append and Increment
> >
> The thinking on the above method is that if doing bulk checkAndMutate, that
> they should all be inside a single row?
That is correct. Although you can send out multiple requests to different rows at once with
the Async api.
> PromiseKeeper is a loaded term! See https://promisekeepers.org/#what ...
> (smile)
Ah I did not know since we don’t have those here. So it is better to rename? Any nice suggestions?
> > There will be a new AsyncResultScanner which handles incoming batches of
> > result. It will not be possible to do next on it since this does not makes
> > sense in an async context. There will be however a way to request a new
> > batch with a promise.
> >
> >
> I like this.... no next. What you thinking as means of specifying
> 'batches'? We've been trying to move away from specifying batches in terms
> of row count to instead do batches of a particular size (See HBASE-13441).
As I currently implemented them you can request nextBatch promises until isClosed() is true.
So if batches are based on size in the future it is easy to change the internals.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message