Mailing-List: contact user-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of yuzhihong@gmail.com designates
 209.85.217.182 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALte62y1toA+tgh=F5OpRzyA5zfK7X0va=NX8JR+GPh6RvJGxA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CABbqrYnvGAe0hSDo17Ngzx_pYLN773m7w4XFhHgwadbRO8gjYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALte62y1toA+tgh=F5OpRzyA5zfK7X0va=NX8JR+GPh6RvJGxA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 13:33:54 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CALte62zN=oR4YbPc03MfcasKJ35F8LamLxwhN8UpO-7JJBgsEA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Time stamp values in hbase Vs Java
From: Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
To: "user@hbase.apache.org" <user@hbase.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160bb9a588a2e04e909da60

--089e0160bb9a588a2e04e909da60
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

See also http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#versions.ops ,
especially 5.9.1.4.2. Explicit Version Example


On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:

> bq. the hbase timestamp long value has more digits than the one created
> in Java.
>
> Can you give us an example ?
> In the following,
> http://www.ruddwire.com/handy-code/date-to-millisecond-calculators/ gives
> me the date corresponding to timestamp value(s):
>
> hbase(main):007:0> scan 'test'
> ROW        COLUMN+CELL
> row1       column=cf:a, timestamp=1288380727188, value=value1
> row2       column=cf:b, timestamp=1288380738440, value=value2
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Hrishikesh P <hrishi.engineer@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> How are the timestamps associated with cell versions within HBase
>> similar/different to the long values that I get using
>> System.currentTimeMillis() in Java? If I print both, the hbase timestamp
>> long value has more digits than the one created in Java.
>> Aren't both milliseconds since Jan 1, 1970?
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>
>

--089e0160bb9a588a2e04e909da60--