hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From lars hofhansl <lhofha...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Secondary indexes suggestions
Date Wed, 15 Aug 2012 03:57:11 GMT
Maybe we know one thing or the other about this :)  There are pros and cons to both approaches.
Nothing was dismissed.
For global, table-level indexes we need some of distributed commit protocol. For "index transactions"
it is slightly simpler, because
they are known ahead of time to be idempotent; maybe we can up with something less strict
than 2pc/paxos.


Naively updating another table and say "now we have secondary indexes" *is* going to bring
unexpected surprises,
as it will work until it breaks because of concurrency issues. If you want that, write to
two tables from your client.


I think this is a good discussion.


-- Lars



________________________________
 From: Michael Segel <michael_segel@hotmail.com>
To: user@hbase.apache.org 
Cc: "apurtell@apache.org Purtell" <apurtell@apache.org>; lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com>

Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: Secondary indexes suggestions
 
Perhaps not dismissive but more focused on indexing at the region. 
And it wasn't just you, but also Lars. 

Also don't read in to what I am saying as an argument. Its not. ;-P

I think the issue is how to approach the problem. 


On Aug 14, 2012, at 9:49 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Michael Segel
> <michael_segel@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I think you need to think outside of the box...
>> But I think you've been too dismissive of looking at the index at the table level
and not at the region level.
> 
> I'd be interested if you can point out exactly where I dismissed
> something, as in "this is not a good idea..." or "this is wrong..." or
> any other explicit statement. Otherwise, you are reading in something
> as implicit that isn't there. I contributed a few thoughts on the
> subject as opposed to writing a treatise. Why does this have to be an
> argument instead of a discussion?
> 
> But if you don't mind I'm not going to look at this thread further.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
>   - Andy
> 
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein (via Tom White)
> 
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message