On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Michael Segel <[email protected]> wrote:
> You’ll have to excuse Andy. > > He’s a bit slow. ... I gave up trying to have an intelligent/civilized conversation with Andrew > because he just couldn’t grasp the basics. ;-) > > > Michael: Quit insult and ad hominem. Stick to the tech. St.Ack > > > > > On Mar 13, 2015, at 4:14 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > When I made that remark I was thinking of a recent discussion we had at a > > joint Phoenix and HBase developer meetup. The difference of opinion was > > certainly civilized. (smile) I'm not aware of any specific written > > discussion, it may or may not exist. I'm pretty sure a revival of > HBASE-9203 > > would attract some controversy, but let me be clearer this time than I > was > > before that this is just my opinion, FWIW. > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Rose, Joseph < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I saw that it was added to their project. I’m really not keen on > bringing > >> in all the RDBMS apparatus on top of hbase, so I decided to follow other > >> avenues first (like trying to patch 0.98, for better or worse.) > >> > >> That Phoenix article seems like a good breakdown of the various indexing > >> architectures. > >> > >> HBASE-9203 (the ticket that deals with 2’ indexes) is pretty civilized > (as > >> are most of them, it seems) so I didn’t know there were these > differences > >> of opinion. Did I miss the mailing list thread where the architectural > >> differences were discussed? > >> > >> > >> -j > > The opinions expressed here are mine, while they may reflect a cognitive > thought, that is purely accidental. > Use at your own risk. > Michael Segel > michael_segel (AT) hotmail.com > > > > > >
