hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Koert Kuipers <ko...@tresata.com>
Subject Re: HTable writeAsyncBuffer
Date Sat, 07 Dec 2013 16:52:38 GMT
hey st.ack

well i am considering creating lots of deletes from a map-reduce job
instead of puts, and was looking at the code to see how efficient that
would be...

but now i am more generally wondering if there is any downside to making
all these operations go into the buffer instead of treating puts special.

On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Koert Kuipers <koert@tresata.com> wrote
> > i noticed that puts are put into a bugger (writeAsyncBuffer) that gets
> > flushed if it gets to a certain size.
> > writeAsyncBuffer can take objects of type Row, which includes besides the
> > Put also Deletes, Appends, and RowMutations.
> >
> > but when i look at the code for the delete method it does not use
> > writeAsyncBuffer. same for append and mutateRow methods. why do Puts get
> > buffered but other mutations do not? or did i misunderstand?
> >
> This is how it 'evolved'.  What are you thinking Koert?  We should probably
> be clearer in javadoc about the sequence in which these ops can go over to
> the server.
> Serverside, it doesn't care what is in the batch.  It will just work its
> way through the 'Rows' as they come in.
> St.Ack

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