-Re: Is anyone using serialized iterators to provide provenance data?
Seems to me this is nothing more than "clone and also add these
per-table iterators on all scopes". Might be a neat little utility to
wrap those features into a single step from the user's perspective.
Christopher L Tubbs II
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Josh Elser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, I see what you mean. Table B was created from table A with a function F
> (where F is some collection of iterators like you said).
> It could be a neat application of the clone command. Storing that
> information on table B is some exercise in where to put that immutable
> information (that's me ignoring that problem :P).
> You say git: do you actually intend to have a cheap replay ability? Or
> merely be able to view the history and be able to work through the
> transformations again?
> Seems reasonable for a 1.6 wish to me.
> On 05/15/2013 08:44 PM, David Medinets wrote:
>> I don't see those as covering the same ground. Let's say I have an
>> Accumulo table for a given human's genome. As a scientist, I want to apply a
>> set of filters to create a subset of the genome. This provides a transform
>> from data-set A to data-set B. Since iterators were used for the transform,
>> we could serialize the set of iterators used by the transformation. Both
>> data-sets are immutable. Think git for data-sets.
>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>> I think this might relate to ACCUMULO-1397, in the form of providing a
>> mechanism to specify iterator profiles, or ACCUMULO-415.
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 2:51 PM, David Medinets
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>> > If you apply a set of iterators to one table to produce another,
>> it seems
>> > possible to serialize the iterator stack alongside the new table
>> in some
>> > catalog to provide provenance. The assumption is that the tables are
>> > immutable, I think. Is anyone doing this or has anyone thought
>> about doing
>> > so? Just curious and wanted to ask before I forgot about the idea.