Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HBase >> mail # user >> Scan.addFamiliy reduces results


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Scan.addFamiliy reduces results
As I told you in the other message, if you don't addColumn() the column you are filtering on, by default it will return any row that doesn't contain the said column: http://hbase.apache.org/apidocs/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/filter/SingleColumnValueFilter.html#setFilterIfMissing(boolean)

So when you uncomment the addColumn(), the filter kicks in and actually filters values. When the addColumn() is commented, all rows are returned.

On Mar 15, 2012, at 20:05 , Peter Wolf wrote:

> Huh!  That's what I was afraid you'd say.  I'm still confused :-(
>
> If "it will give all rows that contain _any_ of these families", then
> why does adding a family give me *less* rows?
>
> Leaving my row start/stop and filtering code constant, and just
> un-commenting an addFamily() dramatically reduces the number of results
> returned from a scan.
>
> P
>
>
>
> On 3/15/12 2:42 PM, Himanshu Vashishtha wrote:
>> " Let's also say there are 1000 rows with A,B,C and 500 rows with only B and C.
>>
>> If I add families A, B and C and scan with no filter will I get 1500,
>> 1000 or 500 results?"
>>
>> In this case, you will get 1000 rows. In case you add only B, you will
>> get 500 rows.
>>
>> It's not like if you add families A, B and C, it will give you _only_
>> those rows that have _all_ three families; rather it will give all
>> rows that contain _any_ of these families.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> Experts are welcome to chime in if I am missing something :)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Himanshu
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Peter Wolf<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote:
>>> Hi Lars, still confused...
>>>
>>> My table *should* have values for families A, B and C.  Let's say I have a
>>> bug, and some rows only have values for B and C.  Let's also say there are
>>> 1000 rows with A,B,C and 500 rows with only B and C.
>>>
>>> If I add families A, B and C and scan with no filter will I get 1500, 1000
>>> or 500 results?
>>>
>>> Many thanks
>>> P
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/15/12 1:17 PM, lars hofhansl wrote:
>>>> Hi haijia,
>>>>
>>>> In that case HBase will still return the data for columns in family B and
>>>> C.But if you only added family A then HBase would only return "rows" for
>>>> which family A has any columns.
>>>>
>>>> -- Lars
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> From: Haijia Zhou<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lars hofhansl<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:12 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Scan.addFamiliy reduces results
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have the same confusion. Say if I added three column families A, B anc C
>>>> to the scan, now if a row has data for column family B and C but no data for
>>>> A, then it won't be returned  in the next() method?
>>>> What if the requirement is to get row data regardless of whether there's
>>>> data for a specific column family or not?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 1:04 PM, lars hofhansl<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>> for HBase you have keep in mind that it is a sparse columnar (or
>>>>> KeyValue) store: (rowkey, columnfamily, column, TS) ->    value
>>>>>
>>>>> A scan only returns those KeyValues that match the scan. So when you set
>>>>> families on your scan you'll only get those rows for which the scan found
>>>>> any columns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Makes sense?
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Lars
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>  From: Peter Wolf<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:52 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Scan.addFamiliy reduces results
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Doug,
>>>>>
>>>>> I had read that, and I just read it again.  But I am missing something...
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does adding a family reduce the number of results?  Is there an
>>>>> implied filter of some form?  Does addFamily add some constraint on
>>>>> which rows are returned?
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that all my rows *ought* to have values in all the families.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB