I don't have any concern about the time it's taking. It's more about the load it's putting on the cluster. I have other jobs that I need to run (secondary index, data processing, etc.). So the more time this new job is taking, the less CPU the others will have.
I tried the M/R and I really liked the way it's done. So my only concern will really be the performance of the delete part. That's why I'm wondering what's the best practice to move a row to another table. 2012/10/17, Michael Segel <michael_se...@hotmail.com>: > If you're going to be running this weekly, I would suggest that you stick > with the M/R job. > > Is there any reason why you need to be worried about the time it takes to do > the deletes? > > > On Oct 17, 2012, at 8:19 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <jean-m...@spaggiari.org> > wrote: > >> Hi Mike, >> >> I'm expecting to run the job weekly. I initially thought about using >> end points because I found HBASE-6942 which was a good example for my >> needs. >> >> I'm fine with the Put part for the Map/Reduce, but I'm not sure about >> the delete. That's why I look at coprocessors. Then I figure that I >> also can do the Put on the coprocessor side. >> >> On a M/R, can I delete the row I'm dealing with based on some criteria >> like timestamp? If I do that, I will not do bulk deletes, but I will >> delete the rows one by one, right? Which might be very slow. >> >> If in the future I want to run the job daily, might that be an issue? >> >> Or should I go with the initial idea of doing the Put with the M/R job >> and the delete with HBASE-6942? >> >> Thanks, >> >> JM >> >> >> 2012/10/17, Michael Segel <michael_se...@hotmail.com>: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm a firm believer in KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) >>> >>> The Map/Reduce (map job only) is the simplest and least prone to >>> failure. >>> >>> Not sure why you would want to do this using coprocessors. >>> >>> How often are you running this job? It sounds like its going to be >>> sporadic. >>> >>> -Mike >>> >>> On Oct 17, 2012, at 7:11 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari >>> <jean-m...@spaggiari.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Can someone please help me to understand the pros and cons between >>>> those 2 options for the following usecase? >>>> >>>> I need to transfer all the rows between 2 timestamps to another table. >>>> >>>> My first idea was to run a MapReduce to map the rows and store them on >>>> another table, and then delete them using an end point coprocessor. >>>> But the more I look into it, the more I think the MapReduce is not a >>>> good idea and I should use a coprocessor instead. >>>> >>>> BUT... The MapReduce framework guarantee me that it will run against >>>> all the regions. I tried to stop a regionserver while the job was >>>> running. The region moved, and the MapReduce restarted the job from >>>> the new location. Will the coprocessor do the same thing? >>>> >>>> Also, I found the webconsole for the MapReduce with the number of >>>> jobs, the status, etc. Is there the same thing with the coprocessors? >>>> >>>> Are all coprocessors running at the same time on all regions, which >>>> mean we can have 100 of them running on a regionserver at a time? Or >>>> are they running like the MapReduce jobs based on some configured >>>> values? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> JM >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
