Mailing-List: contact user-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of ryanobjc@gmail.com designates
 209.85.213.41 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=OAwdBLrNvevb/0jpTu5IOZAc5x1GqWPIuEPUqI0OV9L1cWCrZCFibNWeJz2XX42hsy
         K6EAVcrnVUdJcrrmfYdJ/f0J5SXix8YgVJbl8zhLu6NQ0OU27jGryqjDgwogiFXX2DmI
         0+QlgMeQlGhwsJKdLdazuk3qidofGmmFM5ib8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4CC73DDB.9000807@gmail.com>
References: <4CC73278.40307@gmail.com>
	<AANLkTin7Mj+e2Hbm4ZV-GbQsnQYprxugrNhiUSTpKVA8@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CC73DDB.9000807@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 14:10:06 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTiksMgg-MOTBESiba9aomqTUes+HeP7t9oOyLKXf@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: MultiGet benchmarking
From: Ryan Rawson <ryanobjc@gmail.com>
To: user@hbase.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

HBASE-1845 and the new master were checked in at the same time and
they didnt make the cut for the last 0.89 DR.

The feature is included and will be in 0.90.

No nightly builds... usually the codebase is buildable, so it's not
really a big deal.  It's only about 100k loc.

-ryan

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Igor Ranitovic <iranitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ryan,
>
> Is there a nightly build of the trunk? :)
>
> Also, do you know what the plan is for this feature. I see HBASE-1845
> indicates 0.90, but I was wondering why it did not make it to the latest
> 0.89 RC.
>
> Thanks,
> i.
>
>> It's not in a released version of HBase, it's in trunk though. =A0So
>> yes, you will need to test against trunk.
>>
>> -ryan
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Igor Ranitovic<iranitov@gmail.com>
>> =A0wrote:
>>>
>>> We want to start benchmarking the mutliget feature (HTable.batch).
>>> However,
>>> I don't see it in the latest 0.89 :( Is this something that we need to
>>> test
>>> against the trunk? Thanks.
>>>
>>> i.
>>>
>>
>
>