-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://review.hbase.org/r/268/#review317
-----------------------------------------------------------



trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/filter/TimestampsFilter.java
<http://review.hbase.org/r/268/#comment1382>

    by default if somehow the minTimeStamp gets kept as 0 with an empty 
timestamps list, then it will filter _everything out_.  Do you want to set this 
to 0 and instead include everything by default?  Might make it easier to debug 
perhaps?
    



trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/ScanQueryMatcher.java
<http://review.hbase.org/r/268/#comment1383>

    i dont think this import is necessary...



trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/ScanQueryMatcher.java
<http://review.hbase.org/r/268/#comment1384>

    nor this one


- Ryan


On 2010-07-07 12:01:55, Kannan Muthukkaruppan wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://review.hbase.org/r/268/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated 2010-07-07 12:01:55)
> 
> 
> Review request for hbase.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> Discussion up in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2793.
> 
> Using the Filter approach as discussed.
> 
> 
> This addresses bug HBASE-2793.
>     http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2793
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/filter/Filter.java 960691 
>   trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/filter/TimestampsFilter.java 
> PRE-CREATION 
>   
> trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/ScanQueryMatcher.java
>  960691 
>   
> trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/TestTimestampsFilter.java 
> PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: http://review.hbase.org/r/268/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> The new unit test for TimestampsFilter passes. Running unit tests right now.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Kannan
> 
>

Reply via email to