You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@accumulo.apache.org by David Medinets <da...@gmail.com> on 2013/05/09 15:47:24 UTC
Can Iterators be made user-specific or shell-session-specific?
I'm asking in case I missed something in the documentation. This issue
hasn't arisen before since I haven't shared tables before. When I attach an
iterator to a table in the shell, it affects everyone (and every process)
that accesses that table. Is there a standard of practice? Do people clone
tables before developing new iterators or before exploring data with
existing iterators?
Re: Can Iterators be made user-specific or shell-session-specific?
Posted by Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>.
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:47 AM, David Medinets <da...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I'm asking in case I missed something in the documentation. This issue
> hasn't arisen before since I haven't shared tables before. When I attach an
> iterator to a table in the shell, it affects everyone (and every process)
> that accesses that table. Is there a standard of practice? Do people clone
> tables before developing new iterators or before exploring data with
> existing iterators?
>
For testing scan time iterators, you scan use the setscaniter command in
the shell.
If you want to test iterators at compaction time, testing on a clone is a
good option.
Re: Can Iterators be made user-specific or shell-session-specific?
Posted by David Medinets <da...@gmail.com>.
There is a setscaniter shell command that I had missed. Thanks, David L!
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:39 AM, David Medinets <da...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Yes. But it seems like anything accessing that table also uses that
> iterator.
>
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:49 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> You can declare iterators to use at scan time.
>>
>> Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity.
>> On May 9, 2013 9:48 AM, "David Medinets" <da...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm asking in case I missed something in the documentation. This issue
>> > hasn't arisen before since I haven't shared tables before. When I
>> attach an
>> > iterator to a table in the shell, it affects everyone (and every
>> process)
>> > that accesses that table. Is there a standard of practice? Do people
>> clone
>> > tables before developing new iterators or before exploring data with
>> > existing iterators?
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: Can Iterators be made user-specific or shell-session-specific?
Posted by David Medinets <da...@gmail.com>.
Yes. But it seems like anything accessing that table also uses that
iterator.
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:49 AM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> You can declare iterators to use at scan time.
>
> Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity.
> On May 9, 2013 9:48 AM, "David Medinets" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm asking in case I missed something in the documentation. This issue
> > hasn't arisen before since I haven't shared tables before. When I attach
> an
> > iterator to a table in the shell, it affects everyone (and every process)
> > that accesses that table. Is there a standard of practice? Do people
> clone
> > tables before developing new iterators or before exploring data with
> > existing iterators?
> >
>
Re: Can Iterators be made user-specific or shell-session-specific?
Posted by John Vines <vi...@apache.org>.
You can declare iterators to use at scan time.
Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity.
On May 9, 2013 9:48 AM, "David Medinets" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm asking in case I missed something in the documentation. This issue
> hasn't arisen before since I haven't shared tables before. When I attach an
> iterator to a table in the shell, it affects everyone (and every process)
> that accesses that table. Is there a standard of practice? Do people clone
> tables before developing new iterators or before exploring data with
> existing iterators?
>