+1. Lets do it :)

Balaji.V

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 6:36 PM Shiyan Xu <xu.shiyan.raym...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1 great reading and values!
>
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2020, 15:31 nishith agarwal, <n3.nas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +100
> > - Reduces index lookup time hence improves job runtime
> > - Paves the way for streaming style ingestion
> > - Eliminates dependency on Hbase (alternate "global index" support at the
> > moment)
> >
> > -Nishith
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 10:56 AM Vinoth Chandar <vin...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 from me as well. This will be a product defining feature, if we can
> do
> > > it/
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 6:27 PM vino yang <yanghua1...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Sivabalan,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your proposal.
> > > >
> > > > Big +1 from my side, indexing for record granularity is really good
> for
> > > > performance. It is also towards the streaming processing.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Vino
> > > >
> > > > Sivabalan <n.siv...@gmail.com> 于2020年2月23日周日 上午12:52写道:
> > > >
> > > > > As Aapche Hudi is getting widely adopted, performance has become
> the
> > > need
> > > > > of the hour. This RFC focusses on improving performance of the Hudi
> > > index
> > > > > by introducing record level index. The proposal is to implement a
> new
> > > > index
> > > > > format that is a mapping of (recordKey <-> partition, fileId) or
> > > > > ((recordKey, partitionPath) → fileId). This mapping will be stored
> > and
> > > > > maintained by Hudi as another implementation of HoodieIndex. This
> > > record
> > > > > level indexing will definitely give a boost to both read and write
> > > > > performance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HUDI/RFC+-+08+%3A+Record+level+indexing+mechanisms+for+Hudi+datasets
> > > > > >
> > > > > is the link to RFC.
> > > > >
> > > > > Appreciate your review and thoughts.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > -Sivabalan
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to