[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15484?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15656306#comment-15656306
]
Phil Yang commented on HBASE-15484:
-----------------------------------
These days [~Apache9] is doing some work on async scan. It may be the time to
reconsider this issue? In current implementation, we consider setBatch and
setAllowPartialResults(true) as same meaning. Like caching, batching may be
also an old-style feature? We have allowPartialResults so we can use this to
limit size/time for a large row. We should distinguish two methods or remove
setBatch in 2.0?
What do you think? Thanks.
> Correct the semantic of batch and partial
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-15484
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15484
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 1.2.0, 1.1.3
> Reporter: Phil Yang
> Assignee: Phil Yang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15484-v1.patch, HBASE-15484-v2.patch,
> HBASE-15484-v3.patch, HBASE-15484-v4.patch
>
>
> Follow-up to HBASE-15325, as discussed, the meaning of setBatch and
> setAllowPartialResults should not be same. We should not regard setBatch as
> setAllowPartialResults.
> And isPartial should be define accurately.
> (Considering getBatch==MaxInt if we don't setBatch.) If
> result.rawcells.length<scan.getBatch && result is not the last part of this
> row, isPartial==true, otherwise isPartial == false. So if user don't
> setAllowPartialResults(true), isPartial should always be false.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
