Mailing-List: contact issues-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:45:27 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Josh Elser (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: issues@hbase.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.13037514.1485303488000.201863.1485362727199@Atlassian.JIRA>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.13037514.1485303488000@Atlassian.JIRA>
References: <JIRA.13037514.1485303488000@Atlassian.JIRA> <JIRA.13037514.1485303488082@jira-lw-us.apache.org>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-17527) Allow IntegrationTestBigLinkedList
 table to be in memory compacted
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
archived-at: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:45:32 -0000


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17527?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15838091#comment-15838091 ] 

Josh Elser commented on HBASE-17527:
------------------------------------

bq. all table descriptors do not enable in memory compaction

bq. Then this is the problem, not ITBLL

I am also confused, [~yuzhihong@gmail.com]. I would have expected that, for the new in-memory compaction feature, this would not be on by default .

Are new tables expected to use in-memory compactions by default?

If so, it seems like this fix should be addressed in HTD/HCD. Else, make {{"inMemoryCompaction"}} a constant and I'm +1

> Allow IntegrationTestBigLinkedList table to be in memory compacted
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-17527
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17527
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Ted Yu
>         Attachments: 17527.v1.txt
>
>
> Currently IntegrationTestBigLinkedList table doesn't support specification of in memory compaction scheme.
> This JIRA is to add support for specifying different in memory compaction policies.


--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)