hbase-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Hadoop QA (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-4811) Support reverse Scan
Date Tue, 09 Jul 2013 05:13:48 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-4811?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13702925#comment-13702925

Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-4811:

{color:red}-1 overall{color}.  Here are the results of testing the latest attachment 
  against trunk revision .

    {color:green}+1 @author{color}.  The patch does not contain any @author tags.

    {color:green}+1 tests included{color}.  The patch appears to include 18 new or modified

    {color:green}+1 hadoop1.0{color}.  The patch compiles against the hadoop 1.0 profile.

    {color:green}+1 hadoop2.0{color}.  The patch compiles against the hadoop 2.0 profile.

    {color:red}-1 javadoc{color}.  The javadoc tool appears to have generated 2 warning messages.

    {color:green}+1 javac{color}.  The applied patch does not increase the total number of
javac compiler warnings.

    {color:green}+1 findbugs{color}.  The patch does not introduce any new Findbugs (version
1.3.9) warnings.

    {color:green}+1 release audit{color}.  The applied patch does not increase the total number
of release audit warnings.

    {color:red}-1 lineLengths{color}.  The patch introduces lines longer than 100

  {color:green}+1 site{color}.  The mvn site goal succeeds with this patch.

    {color:green}+1 core tests{color}.  The patch passed unit tests in .

Test results: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6262//testReport/
Findbugs warnings: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6262//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-prefix-tree.html
Findbugs warnings: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6262//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-client.html
Findbugs warnings: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6262//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-common.html
Findbugs warnings: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6262//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-protocol.html
Findbugs warnings: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6262//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-server.html
Findbugs warnings: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6262//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-hadoop1-compat.html
Findbugs warnings: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6262//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-examples.html
Findbugs warnings: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6262//artifact/trunk/patchprocess/newPatchFindbugsWarningshbase-hadoop-compat.html
Console output: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6262//console

This message is automatically generated.
> Support reverse Scan
> --------------------
>                 Key: HBASE-4811
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-4811
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Client
>    Affects Versions: 0.20.6, 0.94.7
>            Reporter: John Carrino
>            Assignee: Liang Xie
>         Attachments: 4811-trunk-v10.txt, 4811-trunk-v5.patch, HBase-4811-0.94.3modified.txt,
HBase-4811-0.94-v2.txt, hbase-4811-trunkv11.patch, hbase-4811-trunkv12.patch, hbase-4811-trunkv13.patch,
hbase-4811-trunkv14.patch, hbase-4811-trunkv1.patch, hbase-4811-trunkv4.patch, hbase-4811-trunkv6.patch,
hbase-4811-trunkv7.patch, hbase-4811-trunkv8.patch, hbase-4811-trunkv9.patch
> All the documentation I find about HBase says that if you want forward and reverse scans
you should just build 2 tables and one be ascending and one descending.  Is there a fundamental
reason that HBase only supports forward Scan?  It seems like a lot of extra space overhead
and coding overhead (to keep them in sync) to support 2 tables.  
> I am assuming this has been discussed before, but I can't find the discussions anywhere
about it or why it would be infeasible.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

View raw message