The addMutations method blocks when the client-side buffer fills up, so you
may see a lot of time spent in that method due to a bottleneck downstream.
There are a number of things you could try to speed that up. Here are a few:
1. Increase the BatchWriter's buffer size. This can smooth out the
Hi Andrew,
I've just seen your post to the accumulo mailing list.
Not sure if you still looking at using pig over accumulo data but I
recently got accumulo-pig running against accumulo-1.5.0 and had a couple
of problems.
To get this running I did the following:
* Download the
Thanks for the reply!
I was just wondering if there was a more recent development for doing this.
It is interesting to hear you got it working on 1.5.0.
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Andrew Catterall
catteralland...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Andrew,
I've just seen your post to the
Hi David,
I've looked at generating rfiles directly, but I know that adds latency to the
process, so I wanted to make sure I had found the upper bound for direct
mutations before exploring that.
The tables are pre-split, and all tservers are engaged in ingest (though the
application itself
Are you aware of the multi table batch writer? I am not sure if it would
be useful, but wanted to make sure you knew about it. It will use the
same thread pool to process mutations for multiple tables. Also it will
batch mutations for multiple tablets into the same rpc calls.
On Wed, Sep 18,
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Slater, David M.
david.sla...@jhuapl.eduwrote:
Thanks Keith, I’m looking at it now. It appears like what I would want. As
for the proper usage…
** **
Would I create one using the Connector,
then .getBatchWriter() for each of the tables I’m
