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

Switch to Plain View
HBase, mail # user - RE: Retrieve Put timestamp


Copy link to this message
-
RE: Retrieve Put timestamp
Wei Tan 2012-11-14, 00:08
I wonder if there is any follow up on this issue, i.e., a put can return a
timestamp of the record? Thanks!

Best Regards,
Wei

From:   Wei Tan/Watson/IBM
To:     [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Date:   08/02/2012 12:37 PM
Subject:        RE: Retrieve Put timestamp
+1.
So far I think timestamp is very useful. I would imagine if we can
configure the return, say in pre/post put, it would be even nicer.
Thanks,
Wei

Wei Tan
Research Staff Member
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
19 Skyline Dr, Hawthorne, NY  10532
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; 914-784-6752
From:   "Ramkrishna.S.Vasudevan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:     <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Date:   08/02/2012 12:54 AM
Subject:        RE: Retrieve Put timestamp

+1.  Anyway all mutations extends OperationsWithAttributes also.

Regards
Ram
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anoop Sam John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 10:13 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Retrieve Put timestamp
>
> Currently in Append there is a setter to specify whether to return the
> result or not. Similar way we can use for Put? Only with specific use
> cases the return TS might be needed.
> May be in a generic way we can return the attributes of the Mutation?
> So any thing which the client needs back can be added into the
> attributes [Any byte[] value]
> and we can return the same to client [If the flag is turned on] User
> can add these attributes using pre/post CP hooks.
>
> -Anoop-
> ________________________________________
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] on behalf of Stack
> [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 3:41 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Retrieve Put timestamp
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Wei Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We have a similar requirement and here is the solution in our mind:
> > add a coprocessor, in prePut() get the current ms and set it to put -
> --
> > the current implementation get the current ms and set it in put()
> > return the ms generated to prePut() to client. For now put() does not
> > return any value. we need to change the behavior of it
> >
> > Any flaw in this design?
>
> In 0.96 we have moved to protobufs.  The put/mutate call currently
> doesn't return anything:
>
> message MutateResponse {
>   optional Result result = 1;
>
>   // used for mutate to indicate processed only
>   optional bool processed = 2;
> }
>
> Should be easy enough changing it to run timestamps?  Should it do it
> always or should we return the request so you have to ask for it?
>
> St.Ack