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 beatls@gmail.com designates
 209.85.220.169 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAHtRq2d5CY=FrmebUoaKG0t4n2HG1gTz_m9FNJGMKx=Nb+S-yA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAHtRq2d5CY=FrmebUoaKG0t4n2HG1gTz_m9FNJGMKx=Nb+S-yA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 12:45:22 +0800
Message-ID: 
 <CAGyVJ6LgRYL91K_xoFi8RTwF0qwk1ijCCG9+Z5uAFOVjt5F3cg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Performance of scan setTimeRange VS manually doing it
From: Xiang Hua <beatls@gmail.com>
To: user@hbase.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0438ecffa4be3504c98df9e1

--f46d0438ecffa4be3504c98df9e1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi,
   do you have script in python for rack awareness configuration?

  Thanks!

beatls


On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 5:52 AM, Tom Brown <tombrown52@gmail.com> wrote:

> When I query HBase, I always include a time range. This has not been a
> problem when querying recent data, but it seems to be an issue when I
> query older data (a few hours old). All of my row keys include the
> timestamp as part of the key (this value is the same as the HBase
> timestamp for the row).  I recently tried an experiment where I
> manually re-seek to the possible row (based on the timestamp as part
> of the row key) instead of using "setTimeRange" on my scan object and
> was amazed to see that there was no degradation for older data.
>
> Can someone postulate a theory as to why this might be happening? I'm
> happy to provide extra data if it will help you theorize...
>
> Is there a downside to stopping using "setTimeRange"?
>
> --Tom
>

--f46d0438ecffa4be3504c98df9e1--