Thats where my data is now, so that would be awesome for me. If I could just write the mutates out to a queue and blur consumes from it I think its a huge win.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Aaron McCurry <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday, November 16, 2015, Garrett Barton <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I have been using enqueueMutateBatch lately, it was much faster (even > being > > out of band) than mutateBatch was for me. I'm not wed to it, some slow > > down is alright. What was wrong with its impl? > > > Yeah I know it's faster. However if a shard server fails while there are > mutates on the queue it will loose data. I was thinking of something like > allowing the row mutation to be pushed to a Kafka queue for persistence and > letting the indexers pull from there in bulk. What do think? > > Aaron > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Aaron McCurry <[email protected] > > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > I would like to remove the following mutation methods due to the half > > baked > > > nature of their implementation. Does anyone have any heartburn over > > this? > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-blur/blob/master/scripts/interface/Blur.thrift#L1169-L1175 > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-blur/blob/master/scripts/interface/Blur.thrift#L1185-L1231 > > > > > > Aaron > > > > > >
