Re: [DISCUSS] HBASE-25299 Scan#setRowPrefixFilter Unexpected behavior

Thanks for suggestion and review. UT updated. Viraj Jasani 于2020年11月20日周五 下午5:36写道： > +1 to deprecating setRowPrefixFilter. PR looks good, as I commented > yesterday, if you could include your nice example as a unit test with this > PR, that would be really great. > Thanks for this nice find! >

Re: [DISCUSS] HBASE-25299 Scan#setRowPrefixFilter Unexpected behavior

+1 to deprecating setRowPrefixFilter. PR looks good, as I commented yesterday, if you could include your nice example as a unit test with this PR, that would be really great. Thanks for this nice find! On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 6:02 AM, Guanghao Zhang wrote: > I am +1 to deprecated

Re: [DISCUSS] HBASE-25299 Scan#setRowPrefixFilter Unexpected behavior

I am +1 to deprecated setRowPrefixFilter method. This method name is setRowPrefixFilter but not use filter and only set start row and end row. I thought this could be done by user. 唐天航 于2020年11月19日周四 上午12:45写道： > Hi, > I have opened an issue HBASE-25299 >

[DISCUSS] HBASE-25299 Scan#setRowPrefixFilter Unexpected behavior

Hi, I have open a issue HBASE-25299 about Scan#setRowPrefixFilter Unexpected behavior. e.g. startRow : "112" rowPrefixFilter : "11" The Result of this scan might contains : "111", which unexpected. public Scan setRowPrefixFilter(byte[]