TimestampFilter Performance [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

["Dickson, Matt MR" <ma...@defence.gov.au>]

UNOFFICIAL

Is the TimestampFilter an efficient means of filtering results by time ranges?  I have the option of extending the existing rowid's, currently pre-fixed with yyyymmdd, to include hhmm also, or make use of the TimestampFilter.  In a quick google search someone mentioned that the TimestampFilter was inefficient is this correct?

Matt

RE: TimestampFilter Performance [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Dave Marion <dl...@comcast.net>]

It will be more efficient to narrow the set of keys to evaluate than look at
all of them and evaluate the timestamp.

 

From: Dickson, Matt MR [mailto:matt.dickson@defence.gov.au] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 7:12 PM
To: 'user@accumulo.apache.org'
Subject: TimestampFilter Performance [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

 

UNOFFICIAL

Is the TimestampFilter an efficient means of filtering results by time
ranges?  I have the option of extending the existing rowid's, currently
pre-fixed with yyyymmdd, to include hhmm also, or make use of the
TimestampFilter.  In a quick google search someone mentioned that the
TimestampFilter was inefficient is this correct?

 

Matt

Re: TimestampFilter Performance [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Christopher <ct...@apache.org>]

Correct, this would be inefficient. Timestamps on Accumulo keys are
there primarily to support multiple versions of the same key. Users
should avoid setting them manually, or using them for other purposes,
without very careful consideration.

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii


On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Dickson, Matt MR
<ma...@defence.gov.au> wrote:
> UNOFFICIAL
>
> Is the TimestampFilter an efficient means of filtering results by time
> ranges?  I have the option of extending the existing rowid's, currently
> pre-fixed with yyyymmdd, to include hhmm also, or make use of the
> TimestampFilter.  In a quick google search someone mentioned that the
> TimestampFilter was inefficient is this correct?
>
> Matt