Thanks for your reply, Damien.
So this solution still use one scan object, and sent it to initTableMapperJob?
Does modified getsplit() function set the salt Bucket number to the number of mapper?If I set 256 salt buckets, and the mapper number will be 256, right?
Another question is can this bucket number be changed? Like 16 at first, when data became large, I expand it to 32, or 64?
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:21:13 +0100
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Is it necessary to set MD5 on rowkey?
> yes you need 256 scans range or a full (almost) scan with combination of
> filters for each 256 ranges
> For mapreduce, the getsplit() method should be modified from
> TableInputFormatBase to handle salt values.
> This is what is done in
> (to return on HBaseWD example)
> So a mapper (several if a salt value cover many regions) is dedicated
> for each salt value like simple TableInoutFormart would do without salt.
> Best regards.
> Le 17/12/2013 09:36, bigdata a écrit :
> > Hello,
> > @Alex Baranau
> > Thanks for your salt solution. In my understanding, the salt solution is divide the data into several partial(if 2 letters,00~FF, then 255 parts will be devided). My question is when I want to scan data, do I need scan 256 times for the following situation:rowkey: salt prefix (00~FF) + date + xxx
> > And If I want do mapreduce on this table, if the initTableMapperJob(List<Scan>,...) is OK?
> > If example of scan the salted table is appreciated!
> > Thanks.
> >> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:12:37 -0500
> >> Subject: Re: Is it necessary to set MD5 on rowkey?
> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Hello,
> >> @Mike:
> >> I'm the author of that post :).
> >> Quick reply to your last comment:
> >> 1) Could you please describe why "the use of a 'Salt' is a very, very bad
> >> idea" in more specific way than "Fetching data takes more effort". Would be
> >> helpful for anyone who is looking into using this approach.
> >> 2) The approach described in the post also says you can prefix with the
> >> hash, you probably missed that.
> >> 3) I believe your answer, "use MD5 or SHA-1" doesn't help bigdata guy.
> >> Please re-read the question: the intention is to distribute the load while
> >> still being able to do "partial key scans". The blog post linked above
> >> explains one possible solution for that, while your answer doesn't.
> >> @bigdata:
> >> Basically when it comes to solving two issues: distributing writes and
> >> having ability to read data sequentially, you have to balance between being
> >> good at both of them. Very good presentation by Lars:
> >> http://www.slideshare.net/larsgeorge/hbase-advanced-schema-design-berlin-buzzwords-june-2012,
> >> slide 22. You will see how this is correlated. In short:
> >> * having md5/other hash prefix of the key does better w.r.t. distributing
> >> writes, while compromises ability to do range scans efficiently
> >> * having very limited number of 'salt' prefixes still allows to do range
> >> scans (less efficiently than normal range scans, of course, but still good
> >> enough in many cases) while providing worse distribution of writes
> >> In the latter case by choosing number of possible 'salt' prefixes (which
> >> could be derived from hashed values, etc.) you can balance between
> >> distributing writes efficiency and ability to run fast range scans.
> >> Hope this helps
> >> Alex Baranau
> >> ------
> >> Sematext :: http://blog.sematext.com/ :: Hadoop - HBase - ElasticSearch -
> >> Solr
> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Michael Segel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: