Details

    • Type: Improvement Improvement
    • Status: Open
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: client
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      We currently have the BatchScanner, which does not guarantee in order results with the benefit of higher parallellization. Unfortunately, if you want to query multiple tables, the only option is to chain BatchScanner's together, but you lose something of the optimizations under the hood for both using system resources well as well as getting data back in order. We have another ticket for multi-table accumulo input format for mapreduce, but I would like to see a multi table version of a batch scanner for regular client use.

        Activity

        Hide
        John Vines added a comment -

        I mean, the behavior will give you ordered batches out of order, but I don't think that's a guaranteed behavior (hence my comment).

        Show
        John Vines added a comment - I mean, the behavior will give you ordered batches out of order, but I don't think that's a guaranteed behavior (hence my comment).
        Hide
        William Slacum added a comment -

        Bit of a tangent, but what ordering guarantees does a BatchScanner have?

        Show
        William Slacum added a comment - Bit of a tangent, but what ordering guarantees does a BatchScanner have?
        Hide
        Corey J. Nolet added a comment -

        I was just talking to a coworker about this. +1

        Show
        Corey J. Nolet added a comment - I was just talking to a coworker about this. +1

          People

          • Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            John Vines
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            3 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:

              Development