Mailing-List: contact issues-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 17:16:11 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Lars Hofhansl (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: issues@hbase.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.12734107.1408035070065.83897.1408036571959@arcas>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.12734107.1408035070065@arcas>
References: <JIRA.12734107.1408035070065@arcas>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-11745) FilterAllFilter should return
 ReturnCode.SKIP
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11745?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14097228#comment-14097228 ] 

Lars Hofhansl commented on HBASE-11745:
---------------------------------------

Does it require hasFilterRow() to return true?

> FilterAllFilter should return ReturnCode.SKIP
> ---------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-11745
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11745
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Andrew Purtell
>            Assignee: Andrew Purtell
>             Fix For: 0.99.0, 2.0.0, 0.98.6
>
>         Attachments: HBASE-11745.patch
>
>
> FilterAllFilter is a filter in hbase-server's test packages used by PerformanceEvaluation to filter all results at the server when given the --filterAll command line argument. There is an unfortunate bug in versions greater than 0.94 (where I rewrote this filter and didn't notice the issue in later versions at the time):
> {code}
>   @Override
>   public ReturnCode filterKeyValue(Cell v) throws IOException {
>     return ReturnCode.INCLUDE;
>   }
> {code}
> This is obviously wrong, and results in the creation of KeyValue objects that we will almost immediately throw away when processing filterRow for backwards compatibility, which FilterAllFilter implements as:
> {code}
>   @Override
>   public boolean filterRow() throws IOException {
>     return true;
>   }
> {code}
> We noticed this problem when comparing object allocations during RPC processing between 0.94 and 0.98.


--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)