keith-turner commented on issue #5014: URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/issues/5014#issuecomment-2495523610
> Should we always require a split type to be set or is absent valid? The pro for this is less data in the metadata table for a common case. The con is absence can mean two things, its kinda like using null in java. I can mean there is a bug and it was not set when it was intended to be set or it can mean its a system split. So maybe we should only go w/ absence==system split if we feel confident enough in our tests to ensure that user split marker is always being set when intended. > For new tables I was thinking we'd either just mark them as system or absent depending on if absent is valid. The create table API has a mechanism to set initial splits on a table. Those could be marked as user initially. The default tablet at the end of every table seems like it would always be marked system, but not sure. The default tablet is always there when you have zero or more splits. > For merges I am guessing we'd do the same? I can not remember what merge does w.r.t. adding splits. Reviewing all of your merge changes, I remember something about deleterows inserting a split point possibly but not sure. But, maybe this was removed in the 4.0 changes? If merge is still adding splits, it was just doing that to make things work so not sure those should be marked as user. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
