To be clearer about the ambiguous +1, we're using Pig 0.8, hbase 0.89
something something, and a modified version of HBaseStorage. Anything
to clean that up gets a +1 from me.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 14, 2011, at 9:10 AM, Dan Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We're still using HBase 0.20.6 with Pig 0.6 and we'll be upgrading to
> Pig 0.8 soon, but a HBase 0.90 is planned for us soon too so we should
> be on that before we need to upgrade to Pig > 0.8.
> How serious is the HBaseStorage in 0.8? Should we wait for 0.8.1
> before upgrading?
> Eitherway I think for us upgrading to HBase 0.90 is more important as
> you say, so we can always upgrade to Pig 0.8.1 at the same time, so
> I've got no problem with it requiring HBase 0.90.
> On 14 February 2011 05:43, Bill Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 13, 2011, Jacob Perkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > wrote:
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On Feb 13, 2011, at 7:41 PM, Dmitriy Ryaboy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Hi folks,
>>> Is anyone who uses HBaseStorage in Pig still on hbase 0.20.6?
>>> There are a number of tickets outstanding to improve HBaseStorage
>>> I've suggested that we should add a shim layer to work between the
>>> different versions, but it's a big pain to do. I'd rather just
>>> move on
>>> to supporting 0.90 only. We just upgraded Twitter's HBase version
>>> week and it's oh-my-god better in terms of stability, and the
>>> was pretty smooth.. Objections?
>>> If everyone is ok with that for Pig 0.9 -- how about Pig 0.8.1?
>>> are a number of bug fixes for 0.8 already in the branch, and
>>> there's a
>>> pretty critical HBaseStorage bug fix that needs to go in, as well.
>>> Would it be too surprising if 0.8 started requiring a different
>>> version of hbase all of a sudden when you upgrade a minor version?
> Dan Harvey | Datamining Engineer
> Mendeley Limited | London, UK | www.mendeley.com
> Registered in England and Wales | Company Number 6419015