They're essentially the same. In fact, a non-asynchronous mutator internally creates an asynchronous mutator and uses that to carry out the mutation. The reason you would want to use an asynchronous mutator is if you wanted to update multiple tables in parallel. If you have a series of table mutations that can be parallelized, then you could get a speedup by running them concurrently.
- Doug On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 8:18 AM, David <[email protected]> wrote: > I know how to use the two functions, but i don't know which case should i > use create_mutator_async? > The application to write hypertable is currently using create_mutator, but > the writing speed is a bit slow, and the machine load average is fairly > low. If replacing create_mutator with create_mutator_async, whether or not > the writing speed would get improved? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Hypertable Development" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hypertable-dev. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Doug Judd CEO, Hypertable Inc. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hypertable Development" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hypertable-dev. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
