[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-17599) Use mayHaveMoreCellsInRow instead of isPartial
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17599?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15859439#comment-15859439 ] Hudson commented on HBASE-17599: SUCCESS: Integrated in Jenkins build HBase-Trunk_matrix #2472 (See [https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase-Trunk_matrix/2472/]) HBASE-17599 Use mayHaveMoreCellsInRow instead of isPartial (zhangduo: rev 712fe69e4da3ff291244bda55b6656ce3dc51f72) * (edit) hbase-protocol-shaded/src/main/protobuf/Client.proto * (edit) hbase-protocol/src/main/protobuf/Client.proto * (edit) hbase-server/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/HRegion.java * (edit) hbase-server/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/RSRpcServices.java * (edit) hbase-protocol-shaded/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/shaded/protobuf/generated/ClientProtos.java * (edit) hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/shaded/protobuf/ProtobufUtil.java * (edit) hbase-server/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/ScannerContext.java * (edit) hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/Result.java * (edit) hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/ConnectionUtils.java * (edit) hbase-protocol/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/protobuf/generated/ClientProtos.java * (edit) hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/protobuf/ProtobufUtil.java > Use mayHaveMoreCellsInRow instead of isPartial > -- > > Key: HBASE-17599 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17599 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: Client, scan >Affects Versions: 2.0.0, 1.4.0 >Reporter: Duo Zhang >Assignee: Duo Zhang > Fix For: 2.0.0, 1.4.0 > > Attachments: HBASE-17599-branch-1.patch, HBASE-17599.patch, > HBASE-17599-v1.patch, HBASE-17599-v2.patch, HBASE-17599-v3.patch > > > For now if we set scan.allowPartial(true), the partial result returned will > have the partial flag set to true. But for scan.setBatch(xx), the partial > result returned may not be marked as partial. > This is an Incompatible change, indeed. But I do not think it will introduce > any issues as we just provide more informations to client. The old partial > flag for batched scan is always false so I do not think anyone can make use > of it. > This is very important for the limited scan to support partial results from > server. If we get a Result which partial flag is false then we know we get > the whole row. Otherwise we need to fetch one more row to see if the row key > is changed which causes the logic to be more complicated. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.15#6346)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-17599) Use mayHaveMoreCellsInRow instead of isPartial
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17599?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15859339#comment-15859339 ] Hudson commented on HBASE-17599: FAILURE: Integrated in Jenkins build HBase-1.4 #621 (See [https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase-1.4/621/]) HBASE-17599 Use mayHaveMoreCellsInRow instead of isPartial (zhangduo: rev e9abe07629bd698b8c727903a0826cde2bf6d1d5) * (edit) hbase-protocol/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/protobuf/generated/ClientProtos.java * (edit) hbase-protocol/src/main/protobuf/Client.proto * (edit) hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/protobuf/ProtobufUtil.java * (edit) hbase-server/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/HRegion.java * (edit) hbase-server/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/RSRpcServices.java * (edit) hbase-server/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/ScannerContext.java * (edit) hbase-client/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/Result.java > Use mayHaveMoreCellsInRow instead of isPartial > -- > > Key: HBASE-17599 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17599 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: Client, scan >Affects Versions: 2.0.0, 1.4.0 >Reporter: Duo Zhang >Assignee: Duo Zhang > Fix For: 2.0.0, 1.4.0 > > Attachments: HBASE-17599-branch-1.patch, HBASE-17599.patch, > HBASE-17599-v1.patch, HBASE-17599-v2.patch, HBASE-17599-v3.patch > > > For now if we set scan.allowPartial(true), the partial result returned will > have the partial flag set to true. But for scan.setBatch(xx), the partial > result returned may not be marked as partial. > This is an Incompatible change, indeed. But I do not think it will introduce > any issues as we just provide more informations to client. The old partial > flag for batched scan is always false so I do not think anyone can make use > of it. > This is very important for the limited scan to support partial results from > server. If we get a Result which partial flag is false then we know we get > the whole row. Otherwise we need to fetch one more row to see if the row key > is changed which causes the logic to be more complicated. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.15#6346)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-17599) Use mayHaveMoreCellsInRow instead of isPartial
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17599?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15859134#comment-15859134
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-17599:
---
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 11m 28s
{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m 0s
{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} test4tests {color} | {color:red} 0m 0s
{color} | {color:red} The patch doesn't appear to include any new or modified
tests. Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch. Also please
list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 1m 14s
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 6m
9s {color} | {color:green} branch-1 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m 5s
{color} | {color:green} branch-1 passed with JDK v1.8.0_121 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m 12s
{color} | {color:green} branch-1 passed with JDK v1.7.0_80 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 7m
0s {color} | {color:green} branch-1 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m
49s {color} | {color:green} branch-1 passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} findbugs {color} | {color:red} 2m 0s
{color} | {color:red} hbase-server in branch-1 has 2 extant Findbugs warnings.
{color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 52s
{color} | {color:green} branch-1 passed with JDK v1.8.0_121 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m 0s
{color} | {color:green} branch-1 passed with JDK v1.7.0_80 {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 11s
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 1m
27s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m 10s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.8.0_121 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} cc {color} | {color:green} 1m 10s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 1m 10s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m 18s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.7.0_80 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} cc {color} | {color:green} 1m 18s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 1m 18s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 6m
57s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m
35s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green}
16m 12s {color} | {color:green} The patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop
2.4.0 2.4.1 2.5.0 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 2.7.1. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 5m
18s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 48s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.8.0_121 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m 0s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.7.0_80 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m 20s
{color} | {color:green} hbase-protocol in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 1m 49s
{color} | {color:green} hbase-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 91m 23s
{color} | {color:green} hbase-server in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m
49s {color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-17599) Use mayHaveMoreCellsInRow instead of isPartial
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17599?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15859065#comment-15859065 ] stack commented on HBASE-17599: --- +1 Mark it incompatible and add your nice explanation above as to why this is ok as release note. Nice one [~Apache9] > Use mayHaveMoreCellsInRow instead of isPartial > -- > > Key: HBASE-17599 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17599 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: Client, scan >Affects Versions: 2.0.0, 1.4.0 >Reporter: Duo Zhang >Assignee: Duo Zhang > Fix For: 2.0.0, 1.4.0 > > Attachments: HBASE-17599-branch-1.patch, HBASE-17599.patch, > HBASE-17599-v1.patch, HBASE-17599-v2.patch, HBASE-17599-v3.patch > > > For now if we set scan.allowPartial(true), the partial result returned will > have the partial flag set to true. But for scan.setBatch(xx), the partial > result returned will not be marked as partial. > This is an Incompatible change, indeed. But I do not think it will introduce > any issues as we just provide more informations to client. The old partial > flag for batched scan is always false so I do not think anyone can make use > of it. > This is very important for the limited scan to support partial results from > server. If we get a Result which partial flag is false then we know we get > the whole row. Otherwise we need to fetch one more row to see if the row key > is changed which causes the logic to be more complicated. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.15#6346)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-17599) Use mayHaveMoreCellsInRow instead of isPartial
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17599?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15858908#comment-15858908
]
Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-17599:
---
{quote}
We should just remove it in the patch for master branch?
{quote}
Oops, forgot to remove it. As [~stack] said, we'd better keep it for a little
longer time, maybe remove it in 3.0?
Let me remove it and prepare a new patch.
> Use mayHaveMoreCellsInRow instead of isPartial
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-17599
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17599
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Client, scan
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0, 1.4.0
>Reporter: Duo Zhang
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0, 1.4.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-17599.patch, HBASE-17599-v1.patch,
> HBASE-17599-v2.patch
>
>
> For now if we set scan.allowPartial(true), the partial result returned will
> have the partial flag set to true. But for scan.setBatch(xx), the partial
> result returned will not be marked as partial.
> This is an Incompatible change, indeed. But I do not think it will introduce
> any issues as we just provide more informations to client. The old partial
> flag for batched scan is always false so I do not think anyone can make use
> of it.
> This is very important for the limited scan to support partial results from
> server. If we get a Result which partial flag is false then we know we get
> the whole row. Otherwise we need to fetch one more row to see if the row key
> is changed which causes the logic to be more complicated.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-17599) Use mayHaveMoreCellsInRow instead of isPartial
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17599?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15857278#comment-15857278
]
Phil Yang commented on HBASE-17599:
---
{code}
* @deprecated the word 'partial' ambiguous, use {@link
#mayHaveMoreCellsInRow()} instead.
* Deprecated since 1.4.0, will be removed in 2.0.0.
* @see #mayHaveMoreCellsInRow()
*/
@Deprecated
public boolean isPartial()
{code}
We should just remove it in the patch for master branch?
> Use mayHaveMoreCellsInRow instead of isPartial
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-17599
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17599
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Client, scan
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0, 1.4.0
>Reporter: Duo Zhang
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0, 1.4.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-17599.patch, HBASE-17599-v1.patch,
> HBASE-17599-v2.patch
>
>
> For now if we set scan.allowPartial(true), the partial result returned will
> have the partial flag set to true. But for scan.setBatch(xx), the partial
> result returned will not be marked as partial.
> This is an Incompatible change, indeed. But I do not think it will introduce
> any issues as we just provide more informations to client. The old partial
> flag for batched scan is always false so I do not think anyone can make use
> of it.
> This is very important for the limited scan to support partial results from
> server. If we get a Result which partial flag is false then we know we get
> the whole row. Otherwise we need to fetch one more row to see if the row key
> is changed which causes the logic to be more complicated.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-17599) Use mayHaveMoreCellsInRow instead of isPartial
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17599?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15857220#comment-15857220 ] Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-17599: --- Any other concerns? Thanks. > Use mayHaveMoreCellsInRow instead of isPartial > -- > > Key: HBASE-17599 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17599 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: Client, scan >Affects Versions: 2.0.0, 1.4.0 >Reporter: Duo Zhang >Assignee: Duo Zhang > Fix For: 2.0.0, 1.4.0 > > Attachments: HBASE-17599.patch, HBASE-17599-v1.patch, > HBASE-17599-v2.patch > > > For now if we set scan.allowPartial(true), the partial result returned will > have the partial flag set to true. But for scan.setBatch(xx), the partial > result returned will not be marked as partial. > This is an Incompatible change, indeed. But I do not think it will introduce > any issues as we just provide more informations to client. The old partial > flag for batched scan is always false so I do not think anyone can make use > of it. > This is very important for the limited scan to support partial results from > server. If we get a Result which partial flag is false then we know we get > the whole row. Otherwise we need to fetch one more row to see if the row key > is changed which causes the logic to be more complicated. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.15#6346)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-17599) Use mayHaveMoreCellsInRow instead of isPartial
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17599?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15856347#comment-15856347
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-17599:
---
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m 20s
{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseanti {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s {color} | {color:green} Patch does not have any anti-patterns. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m 0s
{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} test4tests {color} | {color:red} 0m 0s
{color} | {color:red} The patch doesn't appear to include any new or modified
tests. Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch. Also please
list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 8s
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 2m
38s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m 41s
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 5m
23s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m
42s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} findbugs {color} | {color:red} 2m 8s
{color} | {color:red} hbase-protocol-shaded in master has 24 extant Findbugs
warnings. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m 6s
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 11s
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 1m
49s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m 37s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} cc {color} | {color:green} 1m 37s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 1m 37s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 5m
11s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m
39s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green}
27m 33s {color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop
2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 2.6.4 2.6.5 2.7.1 2.7.2 2.7.3 or 3.0.0-alpha2. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseprotoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
22s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 6m
56s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 59s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m 17s
{color} | {color:green} hbase-protocol in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m 28s
{color} | {color:green} hbase-protocol-shaded in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 2m 18s
{color} | {color:green} hbase-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 79m 52s
{color} | {color:green} hbase-server in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m
58s {color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black} 149m 35s {color}
| {color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=1.12.3 Server=1.12.3 Image:yetus/hbase:8d52d23 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12851407/HBASE-17599-v2.patch |
| JIRA Issue | HBASE-17599 |
| Optional Tests | asflicense javac javadoc unit findbugs hadoopcheck
hbaseanti checkstyle compile cc
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-17599) Use mayHaveMoreCellsInRow instead of isPartial
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17599?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15855175#comment-15855175
]
Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-17599:
---
{quote}
This is a little unsettling.
{quote}
Yeah for end user this is not useful. Let me move this comment to another place.
{quote}
Do you want to change the ScannerContext method partialResultFormed to match
the above?
{quote}
Let me do it.
> Use mayHaveMoreCellsInRow instead of isPartial
> --
>
> Key: HBASE-17599
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17599
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Client, scan
>Affects Versions: 2.0.0, 1.4.0
>Reporter: Duo Zhang
>Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0, 1.4.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-17599.patch, HBASE-17599-v1.patch
>
>
> For now if we set scan.allowPartial(true), the partial result returned will
> have the partial flag set to true. But for scan.setBatch(xx), the partial
> result returned will not be marked as partial.
> This is an Incompatible change, indeed. But I do not think it will introduce
> any issues as we just provide more informations to client. The old partial
> flag for batched scan is always false so I do not think anyone can make use
> of it.
> This is very important for the limited scan to support partial results from
> server. If we get a Result which partial flag is false then we know we get
> the whole row. Otherwise we need to fetch one more row to see if the row key
> is changed which causes the logic to be more complicated.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-17599) Use mayHaveMoreCellsInRow instead of isPartial
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17599?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15855124#comment-15855124 ] stack commented on HBASE-17599: --- It looks great. Good doc on mayHaveMoreCellsInRow bq. 913* Deprecated since 1.4.0, will be removed in 2.0.0. This is ambitious. It is ok if it sticks around longer than 2.0... 3.0? bq. The client 927* side implementation should also check for row key change to determine if a Result is the last 928* one for a row. This is a little unsettling. Do we have to say this in the public API? Do you want to change the ScannerContext method partialResultFormed to match the above? LGTM. > Use mayHaveMoreCellsInRow instead of isPartial > -- > > Key: HBASE-17599 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17599 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: Client, scan >Affects Versions: 2.0.0, 1.4.0 >Reporter: Duo Zhang >Assignee: Duo Zhang > Fix For: 2.0.0, 1.4.0 > > Attachments: HBASE-17599.patch, HBASE-17599-v1.patch > > > For now if we set scan.allowPartial(true), the partial result returned will > have the partial flag set to true. But for scan.setBatch(xx), the partial > result returned will not be marked as partial. > This is an Incompatible change, indeed. But I do not think it will introduce > any issues as we just provide more informations to client. The old partial > flag for batched scan is always false so I do not think anyone can make use > of it. > This is very important for the limited scan to support partial results from > server. If we get a Result which partial flag is false then we know we get > the whole row. Otherwise we need to fetch one more row to see if the row key > is changed which causes the logic to be more complicated. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.15#6346)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-17599) Use mayHaveMoreCellsInRow instead of isPartial
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17599?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15855111#comment-15855111 ] Duo Zhang commented on HBASE-17599: --- Any concerns on the new approach? [~stack] [~anoop.hbase] [~yangzhe1991]. Thanks. > Use mayHaveMoreCellsInRow instead of isPartial > -- > > Key: HBASE-17599 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17599 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: Client, scan >Affects Versions: 2.0.0, 1.4.0 >Reporter: Duo Zhang >Assignee: Duo Zhang > Fix For: 2.0.0, 1.4.0 > > Attachments: HBASE-17599.patch, HBASE-17599-v1.patch > > > For now if we set scan.allowPartial(true), the partial result returned will > have the partial flag set to true. But for scan.setBatch(xx), the partial > result returned will not be marked as partial. > This is an Incompatible change, indeed. But I do not think it will introduce > any issues as we just provide more informations to client. The old partial > flag for batched scan is always false so I do not think anyone can make use > of it. > This is very important for the limited scan to support partial results from > server. If we get a Result which partial flag is false then we know we get > the whole row. Otherwise we need to fetch one more row to see if the row key > is changed which causes the logic to be more complicated. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.15#6346)
[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-17599) Use mayHaveMoreCellsInRow instead of isPartial
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17599?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15854326#comment-15854326
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-17599:
---
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m 19s
{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseanti {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s {color} | {color:green} Patch does not have any anti-patterns. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m 0s
{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} test4tests {color} | {color:red} 0m 0s
{color} | {color:red} The patch doesn't appear to include any new or modified
tests. Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch. Also please
list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch. {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 13s
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 5m
4s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 4m 11s
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 8m
10s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m
41s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} findbugs {color} | {color:red} 2m 8s
{color} | {color:red} hbase-protocol-shaded in master has 24 extant Findbugs
warnings. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m 0s
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue} 0m 13s
{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 2m
12s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m 52s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} cc {color} | {color:green} 1m 52s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 1m 52s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 6m
17s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m
45s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green}
32m 9s {color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop
2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 2.6.4 2.6.5 2.7.1 2.7.2 2.7.3 or 3.0.0-alpha1. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseprotoc {color} | {color:green} 1m
37s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 7m
36s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 1m 7s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m 18s
{color} | {color:green} hbase-protocol in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 0m 30s
{color} | {color:green} hbase-protocol-shaded in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 2m 22s
{color} | {color:green} hbase-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green} 102m 43s
{color} | {color:green} hbase-server in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m
56s {color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black} 187m 27s {color}
| {color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=1.11.2 Server=1.11.2 Image:yetus/hbase:8d52d23 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12851168/HBASE-17599-v1.patch |
| JIRA Issue | HBASE-17599 |
| Optional Tests | asflicense javac javadoc unit findbugs hadoopcheck
hbaseanti checkstyle compile cc
