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 1D706117FB for ; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:53:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 5999 invoked by uid 500); 14 Apr 2014 11:52:55 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 5941 invoked by uid 500); 14 Apr 2014 11:52:55 -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 5932 invoked by uid 99); 14 Apr 2014 11:52:54 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:52:54 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of fancyerii@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.179 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.217.179] (HELO mail-lb0-f179.google.com) (209.85.217.179) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:52:50 +0000 Received: by mail-lb0-f179.google.com with SMTP id p9so5665793lbv.10 for ; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 04:52:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=OOcB3pdhsHXlKJOd4ymIfJlLTKfHxqsuQCUbNdENW1I=; b=AUMMvIpzoWelk++hw2YJipJMMlPigrpFuHUugafOTgcnW6IsZmEC7UgCHjyrC4oaen j7/h9fYezOTDF2MdTMc+7BWOnlyJ23gk0esYp8aM4LeSOzddTO/cMsErhPhNZsyExBuJ p3P295EeBxHN3oECOf/4Ab4jiie438hgBALcJPlcm2faCGuC9K3b7fsyTiSnMfr+kWH/ hhwPjgYMtIbS4ZdZwDfbYnH4Cuin9dOp+G5JsJ5qep/Fb+pyEbQ9qwoAFOWRm0O4y719 IDqaKDqMf+vo2FummgEmlWTKDyhZBt1CP7OTGzqGRVIQZyjeVpLll12LjBpThfOVboKc Txeg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.22.166 with SMTP id e6mr117151laf.71.1397476348598; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 04:52:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.148.41 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 04:52:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 19:52:28 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Scan vs map-reduce From: Li Li To: user@hbase.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org I need to get about 20,000 rows from the table. the table is about 1,000,000 rows. my first version is using 20,000 Get and I found it's very slow. So I modified it to a scan and filter unrelated rows in the client. maybe I should write a coprocessor. btw, is there any filter available for me? something like sql statement where rowkey in('abc', 'abd' ....). a very long in statement On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari wrote: > Hi Li Li, > > If you have more than one region, might be useful. MR will scan all the > regions in parallel. If you do a full scan from a client API with no > parallelism, then the MR job might be faster. But it will take more > resources on the cluster and might impact the SLA of the other clients, if > any, > > JM > > > 2014-04-14 2:42 GMT-04:00 Mohammad Tariq : > >> Well, it depends. Could you please provide some more details?It will help >> us in giving a proper answer. >> >> Warm Regards, >> Tariq >> cloudfront.blogspot.com >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Li Li wrote: >> >> > I have a full table scan which cost about 10 minutes. it seems a >> > bottleneck for our application. if use map-reduce to rewrite it. will >> > it be faster? >> > >>