re there advantages of
> using "reversed timestamps" in row keys over the built-in "versions" with
> regard to scanning performance?
>
> ---------- Original ----------
> From: "Ted Yu"
> Date: Mon, Feb 22, 2016 01:02 AM
> To: "user@hbase.apache.
Original --
From: "Ted Yu"
Date: Mon, Feb 22, 2016 01:02 AM
To: "user@hbase.apache.org";
Subject: Re: Two questions about the maximum number of versions of a column
family
Thanks for sharing, Stephen.
bq. scan performance on the region servers needing to sc
erformance?
-- Original --
From: "Ted Yu"
Date: Mon, Feb 22, 2016 01:02 AM
To: "user@hbase.apache.org";
Subject: Re: Two questions about the maximum number of versions of a column
family
Thanks for sharing, Stephen.
bq. scan performance on the region
uld break if they try to read from it while
> the table is disabled. The only performance impact I can think of around
> this change would be major compaction of the table, but even that shouldn't
> be an issue.
>
>
> _________________
> From: Daniel
> S
performance impact I can think of around this change would be major
compaction of the table, but even that shouldn't be an issue.
_
From: Daniel
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 9:22 AM
Subject: Two questions about the maximum number of versions of a colum
Hi, I have two questions about the maximum number of versions of a column
family:
(1) Is it OK to set a very large (>100,000) maximum number of versions for a
column family?
The reference guide says "It is not recommended setting the number of max
versions to an exceedingly high le
