I don't see it here:

http://archive.cloudera.com/cdh5/cdh/5/hbase-1.2.0-cdh5.9.1.CHANGES.txt?_ga=1.10311413.1914112506.1454459553

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:46 AM, Hef <hef.onl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm using CDH 5.9, the document show its HBase version is
> hbase-1.2.0+cdh5.9.1+222.  (
> https://www.cloudera.com/documentation/enterprise/
> release-notes/topics/cdh_vd_cdh_package_tarball_59.html
> )
> I have no idea if  HBASE-15378  is included.
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Which hbase version are you using ?
> >
> > Does it include HBASE-15378 ?
> >
> > > On Mar 1, 2017, at 5:02 AM, Hef <hef.onl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > I'm encountering a strange behavior on MapReduce when using HBase as
> > input
> > > format. I run my MR tasks on a same table, same dataset, with a same
> > > pattern of Fuzzy Row Filter, multiple times. The Input Records counters
> > > shown are not consistent, the smallest number can be 40% less than the
> > > largest one.
> > >
> > > More specifically,
> > > - the table is split into 18 regions, distributed on 3 region server.
> The
> > > TTL is set to 10 days for the record, though the dataset for MR only
> > > includes those inserted in 7days.
> > >
> > > - The row key is defined as:
> > > sault(1byte) + time_of_hour(4bytes) + uuid(36bytes)
> > >
> > >
> > > - The scan is created as below:
> > >
> > > Scan scan = new Scan();
> > > scan.setBatch(100);
> > > scan.setCaching(10000);
> > > scan.setCacheBlocks(false);
> > > scan.setMaxVersions(1);
> > >
> > >
> > > And the row filter for the scan is a FuzzyRowFilter that filters only
> > > events of a given time_of_hour.
> > >
> > > Everything looks fine while the result is out of expect.
> > > A same task runs 10 times, the Input Records counters  show 6 different
> > > numbers, and the final output shows 6 different results.
> > >
> > > Does anyone has every faced this problem before?
> > > What could be the cause of this inconsistency of HBase scan result?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> >
>

Reply via email to