[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14355?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15003284#comment-15003284
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-14355:
-----------------------------------
{color:red}-1 overall{color}. Here are the results of testing the latest
attachment
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12772054/HBASE-14355.branch-1.patch
against branch-1 branch at commit 789f8a5a70242c16ce10bc95401c51c7d04debfa.
ATTACHMENT ID: 12772054
{color:green}+1 @author{color}. The patch does not contain any @author
tags.
{color:green}+1 tests included{color}. The patch appears to include 12 new
or modified tests.
{color:green}+1 hadoop versions{color}. The patch compiles with all
supported hadoop versions (2.4.0 2.4.1 2.5.0 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.6.0 2.6.1 2.7.0
2.7.1)
{color:green}+1 javac{color}. The applied patch does not increase the
total number of javac compiler warnings.
{color:green}+1 protoc{color}. The applied patch does not increase the
total number of protoc compiler warnings.
{color:green}+1 javadoc{color}. The javadoc tool did not generate any
warning messages.
{color:red}-1 checkstyle{color}. The applied patch generated
3774 checkstyle errors (more than the master's current 3773 errors).
{color:green}+1 findbugs{color}. The patch does not introduce any new
Findbugs (version 2.0.3) warnings.
{color:green}+1 release audit{color}. The applied patch does not increase
the total number of release audit warnings.
{color:red}-1 lineLengths{color}. The patch introduces the following lines
longer than 100:
+ "ualifier\030\002
\003(\014\"\271\003\n\003Get\022\013\n\003row\030\001 \002(\014\022 \n\006c" +
+ "ount\030\002 \001(\005\022\016\n\006exists\030\003
\001(\010\022\024\n\005stale\030\004 \001(" +
+ "l\022\013\n\003row\030\001 \002(\014\022\024\n\014service_name\030\002
\002(\t\022\023\n\013" +
+ new java.lang.String[] { "Row", "Column", "Attribute", "Filter",
"TimeRange", "MaxVersions", "CacheBlocks", "StoreLimit", "StoreOffset",
"ExistenceOnly", "ClosestRowBefore", "Consistency", "CfTimeRange", });
+ new java.lang.String[] { "Column", "Attribute", "StartRow",
"StopRow", "Filter", "TimeRange", "MaxVersions", "CacheBlocks", "BatchSize",
"MaxResultSize", "StoreLimit", "StoreOffset", "LoadColumnFamiliesOnDemand",
"Small", "Reversed", "Consistency", "Caching", "AllowPartialResults",
"CfTimeRange", });
{color:green}+1 site{color}. The mvn post-site goal succeeds with this patch.
{color:green}+1 core tests{color}. The patch passed unit tests in .
Test results:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/16502//testReport/
Release Findbugs (version 2.0.3) warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/16502//artifact/patchprocess/newFindbugsWarnings.html
Checkstyle Errors:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/16502//artifact/patchprocess/checkstyle-aggregate.html
Console output:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/16502//console
This message is automatically generated.
> 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, 0.98.17
>
> Attachments: HBASE-14355-v1.patch, HBASE-14355-v10.patch,
> HBASE-14355-v11.patch, HBASE-14355-v2.patch, HBASE-14355-v3.patch,
> HBASE-14355-v4.patch, HBASE-14355-v5.patch, HBASE-14355-v6.patch,
> HBASE-14355-v7.patch, HBASE-14355-v8.patch, HBASE-14355-v9.patch,
> HBASE-14355.branch-1.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)
