First HBase does not have a concept of "row timestamp". Timestamp is part
of each cell. The closest to row timestamp is probably the latest timestamp
from all cells with same row key.
The reason that timestamp column need to be part of primary key is that
there could be multiple values with differ
Sergey, thanks for this tip!
Since our client data volume varies a lot from site to site, would
splitting only on the first letters of the client_id lead to some regions
being much larger than others?
Or does phoenix distribute fairly across the different region servers?
Would this continue to wo
You may check "Are there any tips for optimizing Phoenix?" section of
Apache Phoenix FAQ at https://phoenix.apache.org/faq.html. It says how to
pre-split table. In your case you may split on the first letters of
client_id.
When we are talking about monotonous data, we usually mean the primary key
>>Don't you have any other column which is obligatory in queries during
reading but not monotonous with ingestion?
We have several columns used in typical query WHERE clauses (like
userID='abc' or a specific user attributes, data types). However, there are
a number of columns which are monotonous w
thanks, useful stuff. I am a bit confuse, from the document
"Only a primary key column of type TIME, DATE, TIMESTAMP, BIGINT,
UNSIGNED_LONG can be designated as ROW_TIMESTAMP"
why this modtime mapping column has to be part of the primary key? it's a
lot more flexible if such a constraint not exi
Ah, you are trying to use the row_timestamp feature, not sure if there is a
way from SQL if that column is not in pk.
but if you are open to using an unexposed API, here is some snippet (please
use them at your discretion as these APIs are internal and have no
guarantee to be consistent in version
sorry, maybe I did not make it clear, I have a hbase table, already
formatted with phoenix format and has composite key, I can query all the
columns I want, but I can not query the hbase modtime in phoenix query, any
way to do this?
Nan
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Ankit Singhal
wrote:
> If
