[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3959?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Christopher Tubbs updated ACCUMULO-3959:
----------------------------------------
Fix Version/s: 1.8.0
> Confusing wording on BatchScanner javadoc
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Key: ACCUMULO-3959
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3959
> Project: Accumulo
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: docs
> Affects Versions: 1.6.3, 1.7.0
> Reporter: Dylan Hutchison
> Assignee: Dylan Hutchison
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: docuentation
> Fix For: 1.6.4, 1.7.1, 1.8.0
>
>
> 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)
