Sure. By definition, the salt number is a random seed that is not associated with the underlying record. A simple example is a round robin counter (mod the counter by 10 yielding [0..9] )
So you get a record, prepend your salt and you write it out to HBase. The salt will push the data out to a different region. But what happens when you want to read the data? So on a full table scan... no biggie, its the same. But suppose I want to do a partial table scan. Now I have to do multiple partial scans because I dont know the salt. Or if I want to do a simple get() I now have to do N number of get()s where N is the number of salt values allowed. In my example that's 10. And that's the problem. You are better off doing a hash of the record, use the first couple of bytes off the hash and then writing the record out. You want the record, take the key, hash it, using the same process and you have 1 get(). You're still screwed up on doing a range scan, but you can't have everything. THIS IS WHY I AND MANY CARDIOLOGISTS SAY NO TO SALT. The only difference is that they are talking about excess sodium chloride in your diet. I'm talking about using a salt aka 'random seed'. Does that make sense? On Apr 30, 2013, at 11:17 AM, Shahab Yunus <shahab.yu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well those are *some* words :) Anyway, can you explain a bit in detail that > why you feel so strongly about this design/approach? The salting here is > not the only option mentioned and static hashing can be used as well. Plus > even in case of salting, wouldn't the distributed scan take care of it? The > downside that I see, is the bucket_number that we have to maintain both at > time or reading/writing and update it in case of cluster restructuring. > > Thanks, > Shahab > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Michael Segel > <michael_se...@hotmail.com>wrote: > >> Geez that's a bad article. >> Never salt. >> >> And yes there's a difference between using a salt and using the first 2-4 >> bytes from your MD5 hash. >> >> (Hint: Salts are random. Your hash isn't. ) >> >> Sorry to be-itch but its a bad idea and it shouldn't be propagated. >> >> On Apr 29, 2013, at 10:17 AM, Shahab Yunus <shahab.yu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I think you cannot use the scanner simply to to a range scan here as your >>> keys are not monotonically increasing. You need to apply logic to >>> decode/reverse your mechanism that you have used to hash your keys at the >>> time of writing. You might want to check out the SemaText library which >>> does distributed scans and seem to handle the scenarios that you want to >>> implement. >>> >> http://blog.sematext.com/2012/04/09/hbasewd-avoid-regionserver-hotspotting-despite-writing-records-with-sequential-keys/ >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:03 AM, <ri...@laposte.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I have a rowkey defined by : >>>> getMD5AsHex(Bytes.toBytes(myObjectId)) + String.format("%19d\n", >>>> (Long.MAX_VALUE - changeDate.getTime())); >>>> >>>> How could I get the previous and next row for a given rowkey ? >>>> For instance, I have the following ordered keys : >>>> >>>> 00003db1b6c1e7e7d2ece41ff2184f76*9223370673172227807 >>>> 00003db1b6c1e7e7d2ece41ff2184f76*9223370674468022807 >>>>> 00003db1b6c1e7e7d2ece41ff2184f76*9223370674468862807 >>>> 00003db1b6c1e7e7d2ece41ff2184f76*9223370674984237807 >>>> 00003db1b6c1e7e7d2ece41ff2184f76*9223370674987271807 >>>> >>>> If I choose the rowkey : >>>> 00003db1b6c1e7e7d2ece41ff2184f76*9223370674468862807, what would be the >>>> correct scan to get the previous and next key ? >>>> Result would be : >>>> 00003db1b6c1e7e7d2ece41ff2184f76*9223370674468022807 >>>> 00003db1b6c1e7e7d2ece41ff2184f76*9223370674984237807 >>>> >>>> Thank you ! >>>> R. >>>> >>>> Une messagerie gratuite, garantie à vie et des services en plus, ça vous >>>> tente ? >>>> Je crée ma boîte mail www.laposte.net >>>> >> >>
