[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14355?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14969611#comment-14969611
]
Dave Latham commented on HBASE-14355:
-------------------------------------
Regarding the API, it is adding non-abstract methods. For 2.0 it would
certainly be acceptable.
For a minor version update like 1.3 I'm not certain exactly how "Server-Side
Limited API compatibility" applies to adding a non-abstract method.
Technically if a plugin/coprocessor has subclassed Scan with the same method
and then some client expects the implementation in this patch and ends up using
that plugin/coprocessor it could have unexpected behavior. That seems
farfetched. However do we try to maintain exact stability across minor
versions for entirely other implementations of the HBase API (does google or
MapR do that)?
However, let's get it done in master first and not let concerns about backports
slow that down. Anyone have a chance to review or any concerns about the patch
or willing to commit?
> Scan different TimeRange for each column family
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-14355
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14355
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Client, regionserver, Scanners
> Reporter: Dave Latham
> Assignee: churro morales
> Fix For: 2.0.0, 1.3.0, 0.98.16
>
> Attachments: HBASE-14355-v1.patch, HBASE-14355-v2.patch,
> HBASE-14355.patch
>
>
> At present the Scan API supports only table level time range. We have
> specific use cases that will benefit from per column family time range. (See
> background discussion at
> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hbase-user/201508.mbox/%3ccaa4mzom00ef5eoxstk0hetxeby8mqss61gbvgttgpaspmhq...@mail.gmail.com%3E)
> There are a couple of choices that would be good to validate. First - how to
> update the Scan API to support family and table level updates. One proposal
> would be to add Scan.setTimeRange(byte family, long minTime, long maxTime),
> then store it in a Map<byte[], TimeRange>. When executing the scan, if a
> family has a specified TimeRange, then use it, otherwise fall back to using
> the table level TimeRange. Clients using the new API against old region
> servers would not get the families correctly filterd. Old clients sending
> scans to new region servers would work correctly.
> The other question is how to get StoreFileScanner.shouldUseScanner to match
> up the proper family and time range. It has the Scan available but doesn't
> currently have available which family it is a part of. One option would be
> to try to pass down the column family in each constructor path. Another
> would be to instead alter shouldUseScanner to pass down the specific
> TimeRange to use (similar to how it currently passes down the columns to use
> which also appears to be a workaround for not having the family available).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
