Mailing-List: contact user-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of dontariq@gmail.com designates
 209.85.216.169 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3582213062677409219@unknownmsgid>
References: <ABB2F6E5-2B94-4A9C-B18A-F54DFA1400FB@gmail.com>
 <CAKTawbLHEKncqW5usbOxAtJtid3W_MkLe4-tpyYJ-5y2vHRKqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1F9B9B49-A4EB-4B11-98C3-CC1E5948F220@gmail.com>
 <CAMVC6RNeMb17mC+eE4LfTh-DSwYaEAnVKO660r22NLDTsLnsQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <3582213062677409219@unknownmsgid>
From: Mohammad Tariq <dontariq@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:32:36 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAMVC6RPpEowgZ4vHORj8EbaUXsMvHBPERV4ZmuJC=XD3RuvYHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Composing your own timestamp
To: user@hbase.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Asaf,

     Apologies for being so dumb. I should have read the question properly.

Regards,
    Mohammad Tariq


On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Asaf Mesika <asaf.mesika@gmail.com> wrote:
> The int, short, short part goes to the time stamp.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 10 =D7=91=D7=99=D7=95=D7=9C 2012, at 01:08, Mohammad Tariq <dontariq@g=
mail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello Asaf,
>>    If the 'int' parts of your rowkeys are close to each other, you may
>> face hotspotting.
>>
>> Best
>> -Tariq
>>
>> On Monday, July 9, 2012, Asaf Mesika <asaf.mesika@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> No.
>>> My index is composed of several fields. Some goes to the RowKey, some t=
o
>> the column name, and some  - and hence the question - to timestamp.
>>> Those that goes to the timestamp are of types Integer, Short and short
>> which together form 8 bytes  - the size of the Timestamp in hbase.
>>>
>>> So my question was if that's ok? I mean, it seems that the normal usage
>> for the timestamp is to have a timestamp (ms since epoch) and to have
>> values there which always increasing - meaning: you'll never see value 7
>> enters *before* value 3, for example.
>>>
>>> On Jul 9, 2012, at 18:54 PM, Sonal Goyal wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry I did not understand your question. Are you planning to use the
>>>> concatenated long as the rowkey to your secondary table?
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> Sonal
>>>> Crux: Reporting for HBase <https://github.com/sonalgoyal/crux>
>>>> Nube Technologies <http://www.nubetech.co>
>>>>
>>>> <http://in.linkedin.com/in/sonalgoyal>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Asaf Mesika <asaf.mesika@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> We've been tinkering around ideas of implementing secondary index.
>>>>> One of the ideas is based on concatenating three meaningful fields in=
to
>> a
>>>>> long: int, short (2 bytes), short. This long will be used as timestam=
p
>> when
>>>>> issuing a put to the secondary index table.
>>>>> This means an puts, timestamp wise, will not occur chronologically.
>> since
>>>>> this is not a real timestamp.
>>>>>
>>>>> Will this create any issues?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> Asaf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>    Mohammad Tariq