You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to issues@hbase.apache.org by "Evert Arckens (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2010/09/07 17:47:37 UTC

[jira] Updated: (HBASE-1485) Wrong or indeterminate behavior when there are duplicate versions of a column

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-1485?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Evert Arckens updated HBASE-1485:
---------------------------------

    Attachment: TestCellUpdates.java

We've tried the patch posted at https://review.cloudera.org/r/780/ here at Outerthought.
The attached file is a unit test showing that the patch works at first sight.
However, performing updates on existing timestamps, in combination with triggering major compactions things don't work as expected.

I've used negative-assertions in order to make the tests succeed, and added a comment where we would expect the result to be otherwise.

I've also added a test with the example where a row is deleted and then an update on an older timestamp afterwards remains hidden by the delete.

> Wrong or indeterminate behavior when there are duplicate versions of a column
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-1485
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-1485
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: regionserver
>    Affects Versions: 0.20.0
>            Reporter: Jonathan Gray
>            Assignee: Pranav Khaitan
>             Fix For: 0.90.0
>
>         Attachments: TestCellUpdates.java
>
>
> As of now, both gets and scanners will end up returning all duplicate versions of a column.  The ordering of them is indeterminate.
> We need to decide what the desired/expected behavior should be and make it happen.
> Note:  It's nearly impossible for this to work with Gets as they are now implemented in 1304 so this is really a Scanner issue.  To implement this correctly with Gets, we would have to undo basically all the optimizations that Gets do and making them far slower than a Scanner.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.