[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15969584#comment-15969584 ]
Andrew Purtell edited comment on HBASE-8458 at 4/14/17 9:59 PM: ---------------------------------------------------------------- No complaints, except for a small nit. We use "mutation" instead of "mutate" as a verb here and there in the codebase. It's not grammatically correct, at least in American and British English. In an API this matters. Call the action CheckAndRowMutate. Naming a state carrying object like 'RowMutations' is fine, this is a noun. was (Author: apurtell): No complaints, except for a small nit. We use "mutation" instead of "mutate" as a verb here and there in the codebase. It's not grammatically correct, at least in American and British English. In an API this matters. Call it CheckAndRowMutate. > Support for batch version of checkAndPut() and checkAndDelete() > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: HBASE-8458 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8458 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Client, regionserver > Affects Versions: 0.95.0 > Reporter: Hari Mankude > > The use case is that the user has multiple threads loading hundreds of keys > into a hbase table. Occasionally there are collisions in the keys being > uploaded by different threads. So for correctness, it is required to do > checkAndPut() instead of a put(). However, doing a checkAndPut() rpc for > every key update is non optimal. It would be good to have a batch version of > checkAndPut() similar to batch put(). The client can partition the keys on > region boundaries. > The jira is NOT looking for any type of cross-row locking or multi-row > atomicity with checkAndPut() > Batch version of checkAndDelete() is a similar requirement. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.15#6346)