Mailing-List: contact user-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@hbase.apache.org
Message-ID: <588F9ABB.30703@apache.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:57:47 -0500
From: Josh Elser <elserj@apache.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.11 (Macintosh/20140602)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: user@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: Performance: HBase Native Java Client versus Thrift Java client
References: <CY4PR14MB1352D927868A8A22FA98F349C14B0@CY4PR14MB1352.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR14MB1352D927868A8A22FA98F349C14B0@CY4PR14MB1352.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
archived-at: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:57:54 -0000

Would recommend that you brush up on your understanding of the HBase 
architecture.

Clients do not receive table data from the HBase Master at any point. 
This is purely a RegionServer operation.

http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#_architecture

jeff saremi wrote:
> I'd like to understand if there are any considerations on why one would use thrift versus the direct client?
>
> I was told that Thrift server allow key-caching which would result in faster key-to-regionserver queries as opposed to getting that from the Hbase master nodes. It would also alleviate the load on the master.
>
> At the same time, we know if going through Thrift would add to the latency since it's an indirect way of getting at data.
>
>
> thanks
>
> Jeff
>