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

Switch to Threaded View
HBase >> mail # dev >> Thinking about 0.98


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Thinking about 0.98
Someone already set the fix version for HBASE-4811 to 0.98. Seems in a
reasonable state already based on a skim of the jira comments and the
latest trunk patch. Some rebasing will be necessary after HBASE-9245 and
subtasks.
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 4:06 PM, James Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> +1 Phoenix could leverage this too.
>
> On Aug 23, 2013, at 4:04 PM, Dan Burkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Yep.  To support descending sort index scans Honeycomb has to maintain a
> separate descending index, which slows down inserts/updates/deletes and
> doubles the storage overhead of indices. We would gladly pay a performance
> hit for descending scans if it meant not having to store indices twice.
> >
> > Descending scans also make sense WRT the new data types API. Currently
> you can pick whether you want the type to sort ascending or descending, but
> if you need both the only option is to duplicate.  Obviously some people
> may prefer to scan their data primarily in descending sort, so unless
> descending scan speed becomes on-par with ascending it still makes sense to
> have the choice.
> >
> > -- Dan
> >
> > On Aug 23, 2013, at 1:15 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Dan Burkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> As an interested bystander (user) I would love to see the reverse scan
> >>> feature (HBASE-4811 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-4811
> ))
> >>> make 0.98.  There has been a lot of talk about HBase indexes lately,
> and
> >>> the ability to reverse scan an index opens up a lot of possibilities.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Do you need it for you mysql'ing Dan?
> >> St.Ack
>

--
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)