HBaseCon is the community event for Apache HBase, the Hadoop database, a
distributed, scalable, big data store that provides random real time
read/write access to your big data. All HBase contributors, developers,
operators, and users of all skill levels are welcome to swap stories and
learn from
If it's helpful to state it in generic terms: specifying a range of
HBase timestamps is *only* a post-filter (server-side) and *never* a
primary search criteria.
In other words, searching by the HBase timestamp is a full-table scan
(exhaustive search). While the timestamp can be nice for certain
As far as I can see, the change is in ClientScanner class, which is a part of
Hbase-client, does this work inside Server (region server?) ?
Thanks
-Kohki
> On Apr 12, 2017, at 6:03 PM, Ted Yu wrote:
>
> Does the release (deployed on servers) contain HBASE-15378 ?
>
>
Hello HBase users !
I’m seeing very strange behavior with HBase (1.1.2) and I’d like to ask some
help here. I’m scanning rows but sometimes it returns incomplete results. Let’s
say I’m expecting 60 rows to come back, most of times I get all of them.
However sometimes (1 in 50), I get only 1 or
Since STARTROW is specified (with uuid) in both of your examples, I think
their efficiency should be tantamount.
Cheers
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Josh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am just getting started with HBase, and have a question about the
> efficiency of timestamp based
Hi,
I am just getting started with HBase, and have a question about the
efficiency of timestamp based scans.
My table's row key has structure `uuid#reverse_timestamp` where
reverse_timestamp is (java.lang.Long.MAX_VALUE - time in millis when the
row was written). For a given uuid I want to be