Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5285200C24 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 07:17:53 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id C3E19160B49; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 06:17:53 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 17E6D160B67 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 07:17:52 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 1297 invoked by uid 500); 9 Feb 2017 06:17:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact issues-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list issues@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 1286 invoked by uid 99); 9 Feb 2017 06:17:52 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 06:17:52 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 969941A01DE for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 06:17:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY=1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.999] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6ycEQpChnypK for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 06:17:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org [209.188.14.139]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTP id E98B75FC5A for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 06:17:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (unknown [207.244.88.139]) by mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 719D1E04DB for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 06:17:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jira-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at jira-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id D32CB21D67 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 06:17:41 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 06:17:41 +0000 (UTC) From: "Duo Zhang (JIRA)" To: issues@hbase.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Updated] (HBASE-17599) Use mayHaveMoreCellsInRow instead of isPartial MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 archived-at: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 06:17:54 -0000 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17599?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Duo Zhang updated HBASE-17599: ------------------------------ Description: For now if we set scan.allowPartial(true), the partial result returned will have the partial flag set to true. But for scan.setBatch(xx), the partial result returned may not be marked as partial. This is an Incompatible change, indeed. But I do not think it will introduce any issues as we just provide more informations to client. The old partial flag for batched scan is always false so I do not think anyone can make use of it. This is very important for the limited scan to support partial results from server. If we get a Result which partial flag is false then we know we get the whole row. Otherwise we need to fetch one more row to see if the row key is changed which causes the logic to be more complicated. was: For now if we set scan.allowPartial(true), the partial result returned will have the partial flag set to true. But for scan.setBatch(xx), the partial result returned will not be marked as partial. This is an Incompatible change, indeed. But I do not think it will introduce any issues as we just provide more informations to client. The old partial flag for batched scan is always false so I do not think anyone can make use of it. This is very important for the limited scan to support partial results from server. If we get a Result which partial flag is false then we know we get the whole row. Otherwise we need to fetch one more row to see if the row key is changed which causes the logic to be more complicated. > Use mayHaveMoreCellsInRow instead of isPartial > ---------------------------------------------- > > Key: HBASE-17599 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17599 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: Client, scan > Affects Versions: 2.0.0, 1.4.0 > Reporter: Duo Zhang > Assignee: Duo Zhang > Fix For: 2.0.0, 1.4.0 > > Attachments: HBASE-17599-branch-1.patch, HBASE-17599.patch, HBASE-17599-v1.patch, HBASE-17599-v2.patch, HBASE-17599-v3.patch > > > For now if we set scan.allowPartial(true), the partial result returned will have the partial flag set to true. But for scan.setBatch(xx), the partial result returned may not be marked as partial. > This is an Incompatible change, indeed. But I do not think it will introduce any issues as we just provide more informations to client. The old partial flag for batched scan is always false so I do not think anyone can make use of it. > This is very important for the limited scan to support partial results from server. If we get a Result which partial flag is false then we know we get the whole row. Otherwise we need to fetch one more row to see if the row key is changed which causes the logic to be more complicated. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.15#6346)