Thanks for your quick reply Arvind,
I'll use Sqoop 1 for now then, because automatic Hive schema definition is
definitely a major boon to my use case.
As for which features I would need in order to move to Sqoop 2, I can't
really say for sure. But since I'll start using Sqoop 1, then I guess I'll
get a better idea as I go along...
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Arvind Prabhakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Felix,
> Thanks for using Sqoop and providing your feedback. You are right that
> Sqoop 1.4.2 is the same Sqoop you tried out before, and is much more stable
> and functional than before. You are welcome to use and we will try our best
> to fix any issues with it that you may run into.
> Regarding Sqoop 2, it just made its debut and you are welcome to try it.
> But as its release version (1.99.1) indicates - this is not yet at the 2.0
> level and as such is missing features. One of these missing features at
> this time is Hive integration.
> Going forward, we will try to prioritize these missing features based on
> what the community's prioritization, so if you could send in a list of
> things you would like to be addressed, that will be great.
> Arvind Prabhakar
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Felix GV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For example, looking at the options I have when creating a job in the
>> sqoop2 shell, it seems there is no Hive support yet. Is that correct?
>> Thanks :) !
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Felix GV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hello :)
>>> I've played around with Sqoop 1 a fair while ago (possibly before Apache
>>> incubation) around the time of CDH3u3. There were a few minor kinks at the
>>> time but overall it seemed to be already pretty good and stable at the
>>> time, so I'm assuming Sqoop 1.4.2 can only be a lot better.
>>> I didn't end up needing Sqopp for my use cases after I experimented with
>>> it at the time, but I'm now revisiting it and I just found out Sqoop 2 is
>>> in the works.
>>> I'm now using CDH 4.1.2 and I'm planning to upgrade to the latest (CDH
>>> 4.2) soon, which includes the first release of Sqoop 2 (1.99.1).
>>> I've read the architecture design articles and I think we could benefit
>>> from some of the new capabilities. I've also scoured the last few months of
>>> the (user) mailing list archive but haven't found much discussion regarding
>>> Sqoop 2, besides the announcement<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/sqoop-user/201212.mbox/%3C20121226063212.GB28520%40jarcec-thinkpad%3E>and a post saying the Web
>>> UI isn't included<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/sqoop-user/201211.mbox/%3C20121128161809.GE6589%40jarcec-thinkpad%3E>
>>> I don't mind not having the Web UI yet, but I want to automate a couple
>>> of Sqoop-based ETL scripts, and if there are any differences between the
>>> way Sqoop 1 and 2 scripts are specified or used, then I'd like to start
>>> doing them the version 2 way, so that my infrastructure is more future
>>> This, of course, is assuming the non-web UI capabilities of Sqoop 2 are
>>> mature enough for general usage.
>>> Can anyone comment on Sqoop 2's maturity?
>>> Should I subscribe to the dev mailing list instead if I'm interested in
>>> Sqoop 2, or is the user list the right place for general (non-dev) related
>>> Sqoop 2 questions?
>>> Thanks a lot guys (and gals?!) !!