Try using setCaching and setBatching.
These help you to avoid the number of calls that happens from the client to
the server for every result/row fetched.
Regards
Ram
-Original Message-
From: sameer [mailto:sameer_therat...@infosys.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:14 AM
To:
(moving this to the user mailing list, with the dev one in bcc)
From what you said it should be
customerid_MIN_TX_ID to customerid_MAX_TX_ID
But only if customerid size is constant.
Note that with this rowkey design there will be very few regions
involved, so it's unlikely to be parallelized.
Hi Anoop,
I haven't used co-processor package before but my understanding is that, it
is the client which calls desired region-servers instead of server calling
the client. Can you please explain how a server-side function can
call/instantiate co-processor.
Thanks,
Dishant
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012
ZooKeeper dev consensus is: fwiw during the summit meetup we took a
poll and the consensus was
that 3.4 should now be considered stable
So I don't see an issue with depending on 3.4.x. At some point you
have to make progress.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Patrick Hunt
When can I expect 3.4.4 to be released ?
Cheers
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.orgwrote:
ZooKeeper dev consensus is: fwiw during the summit meetup we took a
poll and the consensus was
that 3.4 should now be considered stable
So I don't see an issue with
Of course I would also venture the opinion that any HBase change which
uses multi() should be considered experimental, as well as use of the
SASL authentication. On that latter point, use of it is optional. I
would caution us to also implement use of multi for optimization of
MTTR or improvement
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Ted Yu yuzhih...@gmail.com wrote:
When can I expect 3.4.4 to be released ?
Sent to wrong list? This is dev@hbase, I think you want dev@zookeeper?
- Andy
+1
We can also look for issues that are still open (and are delaying 3.4
to be marked as stable), and make the call whether we can use it or
not.
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote:
ZooKeeper dev consensus is: fwiw during the summit meetup we took a
poll
Gmail only showed dev :-)
Should have looked further.
Maybe revision to subject for cross post ?
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.orgwrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Ted Yu yuzhih...@gmail.com wrote:
When can I expect 3.4.4 to be released ?
Sent to
See https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase-0.94/287/changes
Changes:
[ramkrishna] HBASE-6210 Backport HBASE-6197 to 0.94 and 0.92?
Submitted by:Ram
Reviewed by:Stack
--
[...truncated 601 lines...]
Tests run: 45, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0,
I'll repeat my +1 from a while back :)
From: Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:48 AM
Subject: Fwd: porting multi() to zookeeper 3.3
ZooKeeper dev consensus is: fwiw during the summit meetup we took a
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Andrew Wang andrew.w...@cloudera.com wrote:
I wanted to ask off JIRA though about what would be useful in practice. I
think it'd be nice to see, for example, accurate 90th and 99th percentile
latency over recent 10s, 1m, 5m, and 15m time windows. I found some
I put this on the jira too, but the algo I found whittled down a stream of
10 million items down to ~19.5k samples. With each sample at ~36B, that's
~685KiB. There's a bit more from using a LinkedList and general bookkeeping.
Since the estimator is reset every O(minutes) window, and I doubt very
See https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase-TRUNK-on-Hadoop-2.0.0/73/changes
Changes:
[jxiang] HBASE-6274 Proto files should be in the same palce
--
[...truncated 9820 lines...]
Tests run: 2, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.391 sec
Forking
14 matches
Mail list logo
