[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-2334?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Jim Kellerman reassigned HADOOP-2334:
-------------------------------------
Assignee: (was: Jim Kellerman)
> [hbase] VOTE: should row keys be less restrictive than hadoop.io.Text?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-2334
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-2334
> Project: Hadoop
> Issue Type: Wish
> Components: contrib/hbase
> Affects Versions: 0.16.0
> Reporter: Jim Kellerman
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 0.16.0
>
>
> I have heard from several people that row keys in HBase should be less
> restricted than hadoop.io.Text.
> What do you think?
> At the very least, a row key has to be a WritableComparable. This would lead
> to the most general case being either hadoop.io.BytesWritable or
> hbase.io.ImmutableBytesWritable. The primary difference between these two
> classes is that hadoop.io.BytesWritable by default allocates 100 bytes and if
> you do not pay attention to the length, (BytesWritable.getSize()), converting
> a String to a BytesWritable and vice versa can become problematic.
> hbase.io.ImmutableBytesWritable, in contrast only allocates as many bytes as
> you pass in and then does not allow the size to be changed.
> If we were to change from Text to a non-text key, my preference would be for
> ImmutableBytesWritable, because it has a fixed size once set, and operations
> like get, etc do not have to something like System.arrayCopy where you
> specify the number of bytes to copy.
> Your comments, questions are welcome on this issue. If we receive enough
> feedback that Text is too restrictive, we are willing to change it, but we
> need to hear what would be the most useful thing to change it to as well.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
