hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Doug Meil <doug.m...@explorysmedical.com>
Subject Re: Scans and Bloom Filter
Date Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:39:18 GMT

Good stuff Nicholas, I'll add this to the book.

On 2/16/12 3:52 PM, "Nicolas Spiegelberg" <nspiegelberg@fb.com> wrote:

>Currently, ROW & ROWCOL Bloom Filters are only checked for explicit,
>single-row 'Get' scans.  ROWCOL BFs are only checked when you're querying
>for explicit column qualifiers (vs getting the entire row).  This is
>because multi-row scans & full-row scans are implicit queries.  To
>With a multirow scan, the next row after 0x0001 is NOT 0x0002.  HBase only
>knows that the next row is > 0x0001.  The next row could be 0x00010 or
>0x0003.  However, when you call Htable.get(row=0x0001), HBase knows that
>you explicitly want that row and don't want 0x00010.
>On 2/15/12 9:18 PM, "Bryan Beaudreault" <bbeaudreault@hubspot.com> wrote:
>>We are looking at Bloom Filters and wondering if they are helpful when
>>doing a sequential read (multi-row scan) or only when doing a Get for a
>>single row.  It logically makes sense that it would only affect (or to
>>greater affect) getting a single row since it is a way for determining if
>>you have to read a whole store file when fetching a key.  But, we are
>>that Scan and Get are essentially the same code on the backend, so I
>>imagine both will check the Blooms if they exist.
>>Also, would a ROWCOL bloom be more effective if you are often doing
>>multi-row scans but always with specifying only a subset of columns in
>>those rows?

View raw message