J-M: How many times did you try the pair of queries ? Since scan was run first, this would give the get query some advantage, right ?
Cheers On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < jean-m...@spaggiari.org> wrote: > Are not Scan and Gets supposed to be almost as fast? > > I have a pretty small table with 65K lines, few columns (hundred?) trying > to go a get and a scan. > > hbase(main):009:0> scan 'sensors', { COLUMNS => > ['v:f92acb5b-079a-42bc-913a-657f270a3dc1'], STARTROW => '000a', LIMIT => 1 > } > ROW > COLUMN+CELL > > 000a > column=v:f92acb5b-079a-42bc-913a-657f270a3dc1, timestamp=1432088038576, > value=\x08000aHf92acb5b-079a-42bc-913a-657f270a3dc1\x0EFAILURE\x0CNE-858\x > > > 140-0000-000\x02\x96\x01SXOAXTPSIUFPPNUCIEVQGCIZHCEJBKGWINHKIHFRHWHNATAHAHQBFRAYLOAMQEGKLNZIFM > 000a > 1 row(s) in 12.6720 seconds > > hbase(main):010:0> get 'sensors', '000a', {COLUMN => > 'v:f92acb5b-079a-42bc-913a-657f270a3dc1'} > COLUMN > CELL > > v:f92acb5b-079a-42bc-913a-657f270a3dc1 timestamp=1432088038576, > > value=\x08000aHf92acb5b-079a-42bc-913a-657f270a3dc1\x0EFAILURE\x0CNE-858\x140-0000-000\x02\x96\x01SXOAXTPSIUFPPNUCIEVQGCI > > ZHCEJBKGWINHKIHFRHWHNATAHAHQBFRAYLOAMQEGKLNZIFM > 000a > > 1 row(s) in 0.0280 seconds > > > They both return the same result. However, the get returns in 28ms while > the scan returns in 12672ms. > > How come can the scan be that slow? Is it normal? If I remove the QC from > the scan, then it takes only 250ms to return all the columns. I think > something is not correct. > > I'm running on 1.0.0-cdh5.4.0 so I guess it's the same for 1.0.x... > > JM >