No. Why do you want to do multiple parallel reads instead of one sequential read?
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Cagatay Kavukcuoglu <caga...@kavukcuoglu.org> wrote: > Hi, > > What's the recommended way to do parallel reads of a large slice of > columns when one doesn't know enough about the column names to divide > them for parallel reading in a meaningful way? SliceRange allows > setting the start and finish column names, but you wouldn't be able to > set the start field of the next read until the previous read > completed. An offset field for the SliceRange would have worked, but I > don't see it. Is there a way to divide the big read query into > multiple *parallel* small read queries without requiring advance > knowledge of the column names? > > CK. >
