hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wei Tan <w...@us.ibm.com>
Subject RE: Retrieve Put timestamp
Date Wed, 14 Nov 2012 00:08:28 GMT
I wonder if there is any follow up on this issue, i.e., a put can return a 
timestamp of the record? Thanks!

Best Regards,
Wei



From:   Wei Tan/Watson/IBM
To:     user@hbase.apache.org, 
Date:   08/02/2012 12:37 PM
Subject:        RE: Retrieve Put timestamp


+1.
So far I think timestamp is very useful. I would imagine if we can 
configure the return, say in pre/post put, it would be even nicer.
Thanks,
Wei

Wei Tan 
Research Staff Member 
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
19 Skyline Dr, Hawthorne, NY  10532
wtan@us.ibm.com; 914-784-6752




From:   "Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan" <ramkrishna.vasudevan@huawei.com>
To:     <user@hbase.apache.org>, 
Date:   08/02/2012 12:54 AM
Subject:        RE: Retrieve Put timestamp



+1.  Anyway all mutations extends OperationsWithAttributes also.

Regards
Ram
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anoop Sam John [mailto:anoopsj@huawei.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 10:13 AM
> To: user@hbase.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Retrieve Put timestamp
> 
> Currently in Append there is a setter to specify whether to return the
> result or not. Similar way we can use for Put? Only with specific use
> cases the return TS might be needed.
> May be in a generic way we can return the attributes of the Mutation?
> So any thing which the client needs back can be added into the
> attributes [Any byte[] value]
> and we can return the same to client [If the flag is turned on] User
> can add these attributes using pre/post CP hooks.
> 
> -Anoop-
> ________________________________________
> From: saint.ack@gmail.com [saint.ack@gmail.com] on behalf of Stack
> [stack@duboce.net]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 3:41 AM
> To: user@hbase.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Retrieve Put timestamp
> 
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Wei Tan <wtan@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > We have a similar requirement and here is the solution in our mind:
> > add a coprocessor, in prePut() get the current ms and set it to put -
> --
> > the current implementation get the current ms and set it in put()
> > return the ms generated to prePut() to client. For now put() does not
> > return any value. we need to change the behavior of it
> >
> > Any flaw in this design?
> 
> In 0.96 we have moved to protobufs.  The put/mutate call currently
> doesn't return anything:
> 
> message MutateResponse {
>   optional Result result = 1;
> 
>   // used for mutate to indicate processed only
>   optional bool processed = 2;
> }
> 
> Should be easy enough changing it to run timestamps?  Should it do it
> always or should we return the request so you have to ask for it?
> 
> St.Ack=



Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message