Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HBase >> mail # user >> Interactions between max versions and filters


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Interactions between max versions and filters
Hi,
Thanks for all your answers, that was very helpful.
It appears we were using the non-intended behavior of the
ColumnPaginationFilter.
I now understand that:
 - max versions applies post-filtering.
 - ColumnPaginationFilter forces max-versions to 1 (and so does
ColumnCountGetFilter).

>From some experiments, the offset of the ColumnPaginationFilter appears
fairly inefficient, and it seems I will always want it to be 0.
Instead, I'd combine the ColumnPaginationFilter with a ColumnRangeFilter
that sets a low bound on columns.

C.
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Varun Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Looking at the JIRA, I added a couple of tests to the 0.94 version for
> checking deleting versions etc. - if u look at the 0.94 patch.
>
> Perhaps, we should carry over those tests to trunk - my bad on not adding
> those tests...
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Looking at
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12550741/5257-trunk-v2.txt
> > ,
> > TestFilter#testColumnPaginationFilter() was modified but no new test was
> > added.
> >
> > I think Christophe is in better position to suggest what additional test
> > should be added based on his use case.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Ted, should we have such test in the test suite? If so, should a JIRA
> > > be opened for that?
> > >
> > > JM
> > >
> > > 2013/4/6 Ted Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > Christophe:
> > > > HBASE-5257 has been integrated into 0.94
> > > > Can you try 0.94.6.1 to see if the problem is solved ?
> > > >
> > > > Writing a unit test probably is the easiest way for validation.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Varun Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> HBASE 5257 is probably what lars is talking about - that fixed a bug
> > > with
> > > >> version tracking on ColumnPaginatinoFilter - there is a patch for
> > 0.92,
> > > >> 0.94 and 0.96 but not for the cdh versions...
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:28 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Normally Filters are evaluated before the version counting. There
> > was
> > > >> some
> > > >> > issue that was fixed recently that changed this behavior
> > specifically
> > > for
> > > >> > ColumnPaginationFilters and friend... Lemme see if I can find
> that.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ________________________________
> > > >> >  From: Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >> > To: Hbase-User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >> > Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 3:05 PM
> > > >> > Subject: Re: Interactions between max versions and filters
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Christophe Taton <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >> > >wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Hi,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Is there an explicit specification of the behavior of max
> versions
> > > (set
> > > >> > in
> > > >> > > a get/scan) when combined with filters?
> > > >> > > From my experiments (with 0.92 CDH4.1.2), the max versions is
> > > applied
> > > >> in
> > > >> > a
> > > >> > > way that is neither pre-filtering nor post-filtering.
> > > >> > > In particular, I am currently playing with the
> > > ColumnPaginationFilter,
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > I am not entirely certain I understand the intended/expected
> > > behavior.
> > > >> > > I also did not find an explicit specification in the reference
> > user
> > > >> guide
> > > >> > > nor in the API javadoc.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Hey Christophe:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Sounds like a bug.  My understanding is that the regardless of
> > > filters,
> > > >> max
> > > >> > versions should be respected (Yes, we should have a specification
> > but
> > > we
> > > >> do
> > > >> > not have one here).
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Yours,
> > > >> > St.Ack
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>