Github user ivakegg commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/260#discussion_r119136681
--- Diff:
server/tserver/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/tserver/tablet/Tablet.java ---
@@ -715,47 +722,54 @@ Batch nextBatch(SortedKeyValueIterator<Key,Value>
iter, Range range, int num, Se
long maxResultsSize =
tableConfiguration.getAsBytes(Property.TABLE_SCAN_MAXMEM);
- if (columns.size() == 0) {
- iter.seek(range, LocalityGroupUtil.EMPTY_CF_SET, false);
- } else {
- iter.seek(range, LocalityGroupUtil.families(columns), true);
- }
-
Key continueKey = null;
boolean skipContinueKey = false;
boolean endOfTabletReached = false;
- while (iter.hasTop()) {
- value = iter.getTopValue();
- key = iter.getTopKey();
+ try {
+ if (columns.size() == 0) {
+ iter.seek(range, LocalityGroupUtil.EMPTY_CF_SET, false);
--- End diff --
Not too sure I am following you here. Lets say that seek gets called with
a range. The underlying iterator would presumably seek its source with the
same range. Now the seek is iterating through keys past the initial start of
the range and realizes at some point that it has been passing by many of the
underlying keys for whatever reason without returning control to the Tablet.
Now it throws a ScanYieldException specifying where it left off in the seek.
Later the Tablet will come back and rebuild the iterator and seek it using the
new start as specified. The seek can now continue doing its job until it
actually finds a key that is to be returned. Where in this scenario is a key
missed? The whole point of throwing the exception is that we have not yet
found a key to return to the user. There is no missed data.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
