[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3959?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Dylan Hutchison updated ACCUMULO-3959: -------------------------------------- Affects Version/s: 1.6.3 > Confusing wording on BatchScanner javadoc > ----------------------------------------- > > Key: ACCUMULO-3959 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3959 > Project: Accumulo > Issue Type: Bug > Components: docs > Affects Versions: 1.6.3, 1.7.0 > Reporter: Dylan Hutchison > Priority: Minor > Labels: docuentation > Fix For: 1.6.4, 1.7.1 > > > The following sentence in the [BatchScanner > Javadoc|https://accumulo.apache.org/1.7/apidocs/org/apache/accumulo/core/client/BatchScanner.html] > has confused my colleagues into using Scanners and wondering why performance > doesn't scale. > bq. If you want to lookup a few ranges and expect those ranges to contain a > lot of data, then use the Scanner instead. > Also regarding this next sentence, from what I see of the BatchScanner it > will break up "large Range objects" that span multiple extents (tablets) into > multiple ranges, possibly one for each tablet. > bq. Use this when looking up lots of ranges and you expect each range to > contain a small amount of data. > If the client is okay with unsorted order and it is okay with using multiple > threads, then isn't it always a better decision to use a BatchScanner than > regular Scanner? In the worst case, one Range over a single row, the > BatchScanner will perform the same as a regular Scanner, ya? -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)