hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anoop John <anoop.hb...@gmail.com>
Subject Phoenix Testing HBASE-10850
Date Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:10:32 GMT
Hi James
         Sorry for being late.
I have tested the same scenario. This works fine with Phoenix. :-)
Phoenix uses its own Filter not SCVF. In Phoenix Filter hasFilterRow() is
not implemented and by default it returns false. So the old 94 way of
filtering happens even in 98.1 code also and so things work perfectly.

I can see the issue PHOENIX-910. If this is implemented then we will end up
in issues.  So take care while doing PHOENIX-910

-Anoop-


On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 10:43 PM, James Taylor <jtaylor@salesforce.com>wrote:

> +1 to Andrew's suggestion. @Anoop - would you mind verifying whether or not
> the TestSCVFWithMiniCluster written as a Phoenix query returns the correct
> results?
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Andrew Purtell <andrew.purtell@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > This would be my preference also.
> >
> > Can someone provide a definitive statement on if a critical/blocker bug
> > exists for Phoenix or not? If not, we have sufficient votes at this point
> > to carry the RC and can go forward with the release at the end of the
> vote
> > period.
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 3, 2014, at 5:57 PM, James Taylor <jtaylor@salesforce.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I implore you to stick with releasing RC3. Phoenix 4.0 has no release
> it
> > > can currently run on. Phoenix doesn't use SingleColumnValueFilter, so
> it
> > > seems that HBASE-10850 has no impact wrt Phoenix. Can't we get these
> > > additional bugs in 0.98.2 - it's one month away [1]?
> > >
> > >    James
> > >
> > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:34 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan <
> > > ramkrishna.s.vasudevan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Will target HBASE-10899 also then by that time.
> > >>
> > >> Regards
> > >> Ram
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Understood, Andy.
> > >>>
> > >>> I have integrated fix for HBASE-10850 to 0.98
> > >>>
> > >>> Cheers
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Andrew Purtell <
> > andrew.purtell@gmail.com
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> I will sink this RC and roll a new one tomorrow.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> However, I may very well release the next RC even if I am the only
> +1
> > >>> vote
> > >>>> and testing it causes your workstation to catch fire. So please
take
> > >> the
> > >>>> time to commit whatever you feel is needed to the 0.98 branch or
> file
> > >>>> blockers against 0.98.1 in the next 24 hours. This is it for 0.98.1.
> > >>>> 0.98.2 will happen a mere 30 days from the 0.98.1 release.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Apr 3, 2014, at 11:21 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I agree with Anoop's assessment.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Cheers
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Apr 3, 2014, at 2:19 AM, Anoop John <anoop.hbase@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> After analysing HBASE-10850  I think better we can fix
this in
> 98.1
> > >>>> release
> > >>>>>> itself.  Also Phoenix plan to use this 98.1 and Phoenix
uses
> > >> essential
> > >>>> CF
> > >>>>>> optimization.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Also HBASE-10854 can be included in 98.1 in such a case,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Considering those we need a new RC.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> -Anoop-
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:19 AM, ramkrishna vasudevan <
> > >>>>>> ramkrishna.s.vasudevan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> +1 on the RC.
> > >>>>>>> Checked the signature.
> > >>>>>>> Downloaded the source, built and ran the testcases.
> > >>>>>>> Ran Integration Tests with ACL and Visibility labels.
 Everything
> > >>> looks
> > >>>>>>> fine.
> > >>>>>>> Compaction, flushes etc too.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Regards
> > >>>>>>> Ram
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Elliott Clark <
> eclark@apache.org>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> +1
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Checked the hash
> > >>>>>>>> Checked the tar layout.
> > >>>>>>>> Played with a single node.  Everything seemed good
after ITBLL
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> +1
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> The hash is good.  Doc. and layout looks good.
 UI seems fine.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Ran on small cluster w/ default hadoop 2.2
in hbase against a
> tip
> > >>> of
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> branch hadoop 2.4 cluster.  Seems to basically
work (small big
> > >>> linked
> > >>>>>>>> list
> > >>>>>>>>> test worked).
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> TSDB seems to work fine against this RC.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I don't mean to be stealing our Jon's thunder
but in case he is
> > >> too
> > >>>>>>>>> occupied to vote here, I'll note that he has
gotten our
> internal
> > >>> rig
> > >>>>>>>>> running against the tip of the 0.98 branch
and it has been
> > >> passing
> > >>>>>>> green
> > >>>>>>>>> running IT tests on a small cluster over hours.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> St.Ack
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Andrew Purtell
<
> > >>>> apurtell@apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> The 4th HBase 0.98.1 release candidate
(RC3) is available for
> > >>>>>>> download
> > >>>>>>>> at
> > >>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~apurtell/0.98.1RC3/
and Maven
> > >> artifacts
> > >>>>>>> are
> > >>>>>>>>> also
> > >>>>>>>>>> available in the temporary repository
> > >>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehbase-1016
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Signed with my code signing key D5365CCD.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> The issues resolved in this release can
be found here:
> > >>
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310753&version=12325664
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Please try out the candidate and vote +1/-1
by midnight
> Pacific
> > >>> Time
> > >>>>>>>>> (00:00
> > >>>>>>>>>> PDT) on April 6 on whether or not we should
release this as
> > >>> 0.98.1.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> - Andy
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth
by hitting back. -
> > >>> Piet
> > >>>>>>>> Hein
> > >>>>>>>>>> (via Tom White)
> > >>
> >
>

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