We just ran into this again today, where we forgot to set scanner caching and observed bad performance.
The default of 1 does not seem to make any sense (except for very specific case of large/wide rows).

Any value between 10 and 1000 should be OK, really. Maybe the default should be 100.

This would also go some way to avoid the perception that HBase is slow for folks who are just playing around with it.
Thoughts?
-- Lars

I set that to 100 typically.

On Tuesday, October 16, 2012, lars hofhansl wrote:

> We just ran into this again today, where we forgot to set scanner caching
> and observed bad performance.
> The default of 1 does not seem to make any sense (except for very specific
> case of large/wide rows).
>
> Any value between 10 and 1000 should be OK, really. Maybe the default
> should be 100.
>
> This would also go some way to avoid the perception that HBase is slow for
> folks who are just playing around with it.
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> -- Lars
>
>

--
Best regards,

   - Andy

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

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:25 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We just ran into this again today, where we forgot to set scanner caching and observed bad performance.
> The default of 1 does not seem to make any sense (except for very specific case of large/wide rows).
>
> Any value between 10 and 1000 should be OK, really. Maybe the default should be 100.
>
> This would also go some way to avoid the perception that HBase is slow for folks who are just playing around with it.
>

I'd say all our defaults could do w/ an edit but am fine starting w/
this one alone (Or we have the UI come w/ flashing neon saying the
configs are super conservative and must be tuned).

St.Ack

100 is a good idea.  It's one of the most common questions on the
dist-list (e.g., hey my MR job is slow?  answer:  set caching to something
more than 1).

On 10/17/12 1:12 AM, "Stack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:25 PM, lars hofhansl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> We just ran into this again today, where we forgot to set scanner
>>caching and observed bad performance.
>> The default of 1 does not seem to make any sense (except for very
>>specific case of large/wide rows).
>>
>> Any value between 10 and 1000 should be OK, really. Maybe the default
>>should be 100.
>>
>> This would also go some way to avoid the perception that HBase is slow
>>for folks who are just playing around with it.
>>
>
>I'd say all our defaults could do w/ an edit but am fine starting w/
>this one alone (Or we have the UI come w/ flashing neon saying the
>configs are super conservative and must be tuned).
>
>St.Ack
>