___
> From: James Taylor
> To: Kiru Pakkirisamy
> Cc: "user@hbase.apache.org"
> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 5:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Client Get vs Coprocessor scan performance
>
>
> Kiru,
> What's your column family name? Ju
kirisamy
Cc: "user@hbase.apache.org"
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: Client Get vs Coprocessor scan performance
Kiru,
What's your column family name? Just to confirm, the column qualifier of
your key value is C_10345 and this stores a value as a Double using
Bytes.toB
ordpress.com
>
> --
> *From:* James Taylor
> *To:* user@hbase.apache.org; Kiru Pakkirisamy
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 18, 2013 2:07 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: Client Get vs Coprocessor scan performance
>
> Kiru,
> If you're able to post the key v
___
> From: James Taylor
>To: "user@hbase.apache.org"
>Cc: Kiru Pakkirisamy
>Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 11:44 AM
>
>Subject: Re: Client Get vs Coprocessor scan performance
>
>
>Would be interesting to compare against Phoenix's Skip Scan
>(http://phoeni
> From: James Taylor
> To: "user@hbase.apache.org"
> Cc: Kiru Pakkirisamy
> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 11:44 AM
> Subject: Re: Client Get vs Coprocessor scan performance
>
>
> Would be interesting to compare against Phoenix's Skip Scan
> (
cluster. Thanks.
Regards,
- kiru
Kiru Pakkirisamy | webcloudtech.wordpress.com
From: James Taylor
To: "user@hbase.apache.org"
Cc: Kiru Pakkirisamy
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: Client Get vs Coprocessor scan performance
anks again.
Regards,
- kiru
Kiru Pakkirisamy | webcloudtech.wordpress.com
From: Ted Yu
To: "user@hbase.apache.org" ; Kiru Pakkirisamy
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 6:39 AM
Subject: Re: Client Get vs Coprocessor scan performance
bq. Get'
his after putting in 0.94.10 (for hbase-6870 sake) which seems
>> to be very good in bringing up the regions online fast and balanced. Thanks
>> and much appreciated.
>>
>> Regards,
>> - kiru
>>
>>
>> Kiru Pakkirisamy | webcloudtech.wordpress.com
gt; Regards,
> - kiru
>
>
> Kiru Pakkirisamy | webcloudtech.wordpress.com
>
>
>
> From: Ted Yu
> To: "user@hbase.apache.org"
> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 4:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Client Get vs Coprocessor scan performance
>
>
August 17, 2013 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: Client Get vs Coprocessor scan performance
HBASE-6870 targeted whole table scanning for each coprocessorService call
which exhibited itself through:
HTable#coprocessorService -> getStartKeysInRange -> getStartEndKeys ->
getRegionLocations -
processor running in 31 regions.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > - kiru
> > >
> > >
> > > Kiru Pakkirisamy | webcloudtech.wordpress.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Ted Yu
> >
roup-by beats the coprocessor running in 31 regions.
> >
> > Regards,
> > - kiru
> >
> >
> > Kiru Pakkirisamy | webcloudtech.wordpress.com
> >
> >
> > ________________
> > From: Ted Yu
> > To: user@hbase.apache.org; Kiru Pakkirisamy
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: Client Get vs Coprocessor scan performance
Hey Kiru,
Another option for you may be to use Phoenix
(https://github.com/forcedotcom/phoenix). In particular, our skip scan may be
what you're looking for:
http://phoenix-hbase.blogspot.com/
be soon deploying this to our Performance cluster where our query
> is at 15 secs range.
>
> Regards,
> - kiru
>
>
> Kiru Pakkirisamy | webcloudtech.wordpress.com
>
>
> ____________
> From: Ted Yu
> To: "user@hbase.apache.org"
> Cc
Pakkirisamy | webcloudtech.wordpress.com
From: Kiru Pakkirisamy
To: "user@hbase.apache.org"
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: Client Get vs Coprocessor scan performance
I think this fixes my issues. On our dev cluster what used to take 12
From: Ted Yu
To: "user@hbase.apache.org"
Cc: "user@hbase.apache.org"
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2013 10:44 PM
Subject: Re: Client Get vs Coprocessor scan performance
I think you need HBASE-6870 which went into 0.94.8
Upgrading should boost cop
@hbase.apache.org; Kiru Pakkirisamy
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2013 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: Client Get vs Coprocessor scan performance
Hi Kiru,
Sorry for my poor english.
If you perform a batch GET using HTable.get(List), it not a really
single-threaded operation. It will first sort and group
webcloudtech.wordpress.com
>
>
>
> From: Ted Yu
> To: user@hbase.apache.org; Kiru Pakkirisamy
> Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2013 8:40 PM
> Subject: Re: Client Get vs Coprocessor scan performance
>
>
> Can you give us a bit more informa
ards,
> - kiru
>
>
> Kiru Pakkirisamy | webcloudtech.wordpress.com
>
>
>
> From: Ted Yu
> To: user@hbase.apache.org; Kiru Pakkirisamy
> Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2013 8:40 PM
> Subject: Re: Client Get vs Coprocessor scan perfor
t;
>
> Kiru Pakkirisamy | webcloudtech.wordpress.com
>
>
>
> From: Ted Yu
> To: user@hbase.apache.org; Kiru Pakkirisamy
> Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2013 8:40 PM
> Subject: Re: Client Get vs Coprocessor scan performance
>
>
> Can you give us a b
regions.
Regards,
- kiru
Kiru Pakkirisamy | webcloudtech.wordpress.com
From: Ted Yu
To: user@hbase.apache.org; Kiru Pakkirisamy
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2013 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: Client Get vs Coprocessor scan performance
Can you give us a bit more
Can you give us a bit more information ?
How do you deliver the 55 rowkeys to your endpoint ?
How many regions do you have for this table ?
What HBase version are you using ?
Thanks
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy
wrote:
> Hi,
> I am finding an odd behavior with the Coprocesso
Hi,
I am finding an odd behavior with the Coprocessor performance lagging a client
side Get.
I have a table with 50 rows. Each have variable # of columns in one column
family (in this case about 60 columns in total are processed)
When I try to get specific 55 rows, the client side complet
23 matches
Mail list logo
