Mailing-List: contact user-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@hbase.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALte62zh_NPXDHfowcZu7A1EWgHDmnc=yRLfvEU+1DH-vkULgQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAG+ckK9UiNWs5bufHFX4+6bGEyzYMqzP0a7vbOeH68KXe4zHBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAg3a2pyENMCn5hW+X6Y11n_vyEOr2GrRxVH1=EnJqwHbB5FeA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALte62zh_NPXDHfowcZu7A1EWgHDmnc=yRLfvEU+1DH-vkULgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 13:50:43 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAG+ckK_1TraUTMeK-jx+j=wTpJ3juxmEROZU4v=zto1OxGVqpg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Potential bugs in HTable In incrementColumnValue method
From: Jerry Lam <chilinglam@gmail.com>
To: user <user@hbase.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f64701db7561e0518196549

--e89a8f64701db7561e0518196549
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi Vlad,

I copied the code from HBase version 1.0.0.
I first noticed it in version 0.98.6.

We have codes that use HBase since 0.92. So some of the codes have not been
ported to the latest version therefore they are still using the deprecated
methods.

The reason I'm asking is because I don't know if I should use SKIP_WAL to
get the same semantic of writeToWAL (true). I'm doubting it because the
name SKIP_WAL implies writeToWAL false. :)

Best Regards,

Jerry


On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:

> I see code in this formation in 0.98 branch.
>
> Looking at the unit tests which exercise incrementColumnValue(), they all
> call:
>   public long incrementColumnValue(final byte [] row, final byte [] family,
>       final byte [] qualifier, final long amount)
> Possibly because the one mentioned by Jerry is deprecated.
>
> FYI
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Vladimir Rodionov <vladrodionov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi, Jerry
> >
> > Which version of HBase is it?
> >
> > -Vlad
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Jerry Lam <chilinglam@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi HBase community,
> > >
> > > Can anyone confirm that the method incrementColumnValue is implemented
> > > correctly?
> > >
> > > I'm talking about mainly the deprecated method:
> > >
> > >  @Deprecated
> > >
> > >   @Override
> > >
> > >   public long incrementColumnValue(final byte [] row, final byte []
> > family,
> > >
> > >       final byte [] qualifier, final long amount, final boolean
> > writeToWAL)
> > >
> > >   throws IOException {
> > >
> > >     return incrementColumnValue(row, family, qualifier, amount,
> > >
> > >       writeToWAL? Durability.SKIP_WAL: Durability.USE_DEFAULT);
> > >
> > >   }
> > >
> > >
> > > Note from the above, if writeToWAL is true, Durability is set to
> > SKIP_WAL.
> > >
> > > It does not make sense to me so I'm asking if this might be a potential
> > > bug.
> > >
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > >
> > >
> > > Jerry
> > >
> >
>

--e89a8f64701db7561e0518196549--