Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4ECCD10DDE for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 22:39:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 85734 invoked by uid 500); 9 Dec 2013 22:39:10 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 85650 invoked by uid 500); 9 Dec 2013 22:39:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@hbase.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 85642 invoked by uid 99); 9 Dec 2013 22:39:10 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 22:39:10 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of saint.ack@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.46 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.46] (HELO mail-bk0-f46.google.com) (209.85.214.46) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 22:39:05 +0000 Received: by mail-bk0-f46.google.com with SMTP id u15so1650853bkz.19 for ; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 14:38:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=2RQyIMZsi/t4pGJrobQmqJI5Obn18pzUELgX4h9SryU=; b=hwiUtFupDhW9FMS4/oCv/8MfkYw6Xwda6LsqPfBdRaMHSmY+TbX4uXZRjxYKJlZwbp lGXzen49VFFl2nuvg9uUEne0LBirQdf/1G9aBQt2I/6CnOn2FnHXD43/lDUQl0x5Y1ff B9Y2Id+0iAGMMRC5r8GvFWSm5EH0nhgkUvU1oiGdffpQN8zna1nuLqNydMRWzEU4qdPg Ck9FDtqWhgmzAT7/j+VMKLjGUPzUE//kbpBL3zSmz7I0yQnzuPis15EhlqxqVezyiBBJ 5DsrEY5i8GdX89NfAO6x9U9RDPZzoRI1Bm7PvnR1kmQQWajI0ccfzx3Kol81Cn91Rwrf TroA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.205.36.12 with SMTP id sy12mr31133bkb.172.1386628723928; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 14:38:43 -0800 (PST) Sender: saint.ack@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.95.67 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:38:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:38:43 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: imtey9ebsDN7TxGaxD5d6-IUHfc Message-ID: Subject: Re: HTable writeAsyncBuffer From: Stack To: Hbase-User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec52c5b6186a05b04ed21a80b X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --bcaec52c5b6186a05b04ed21a80b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Koert Kuipers wrote: > 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... > > You have been writing code for a while (smile)? > 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. > > I'm not sure I understand the question. If you are asking if doing mass individual deletes of cells is to be avoided, the answer is yes. But maybe I have you wrong? St.Ack --bcaec52c5b6186a05b04ed21a80b--