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

Switch to Plain View
HBase >> mail # user >> Coprocessor Increments


+
John Weatherford 2013-10-10, 01:43
+
Vladimir Rodionov 2013-10-10, 02:28
+
Ted Yu 2013-10-10, 02:39
+
Ted Yu 2013-10-10, 02:43
+
John Weatherford 2013-10-10, 03:26
+
Ted Yu 2013-10-10, 03:43
+
John Weatherford 2013-10-10, 04:03
+
Michael Segel 2013-10-10, 14:57
+
John Weatherford 2013-10-10, 16:15
+
Michael Segel 2013-10-10, 16:55
+
Vladimir Rodionov 2013-10-10, 19:09
+
Vladimir Rodionov 2013-10-10, 19:23
+
Tom Brown 2013-10-10, 20:20
+
Michael Segel 2013-10-10, 21:57
+
Vladimir Rodionov 2013-10-10, 23:52
+
Michael Segel 2013-10-11, 16:10
+
Vladimir Rodionov 2013-10-11, 17:26
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Coprocessor Increments
Right….

Ok,  that explains some of the issues.

From a design perspective… it would make sense if the RO updated the same row,  or a row in a separate table. But not a different row in the same table.

Outside of the additional RPC overhead, has anyone had a problem updating a row in a different table? If I understand correctly, there wouldn't be a chance of any 'deadlocks', just a bit of latency or the potential for an RPC error if you have a flakey network / nodes…

On Oct 11, 2013, at 12:26 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>>> With respect to the OP's design… does the deadlock occur because he's trying to update a column in a different row within the same table?
>
> Because he is trying to update *row* in a different Region (and potentially in different RS).
>
> Best regards,
> Vladimir Rodionov
> Principal Platform Engineer
> Carrier IQ, www.carrieriq.com
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Michael Segel [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 9:10 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Vladimir Rodionov
> Subject: Re: Coprocessor Increments
>
>
> Confidentiality Notice:  The information contained in this message, including any attachments hereto, may be confidential and is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom this message is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent or designee of the intended recipient, please note that any review, use, disclosure or distribution of this message or its attachments, in any form, is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and/or [EMAIL PROTECTED] and delete or destroy any copy of this message and its attachments.
>
+
John Weatherford 2013-10-12, 01:06
+
Ted Yu 2013-10-12, 14:42
+
Michael Segel 2013-10-12, 23:04
+
anil gupta 2013-10-13, 04:27
+
Michael Segel 2013-10-13, 13:02
+
anil gupta 2013-10-13, 15:15
+
Michael Segel 2013-10-14, 14:50
+
Tom Brown 2013-10-14, 16:36
+
John Weatherford 2013-10-14, 20:39
+
anil gupta 2013-10-14, 22:25
+
Ted Yu 2013-10-14, 22:34
+
anil gupta 2013-10-15, 03:57
+
Michael Segel 2013-10-15, 18:12
+
anil gupta 2013-10-15, 20:47