----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://review.hbase.org/r/376/#review463 -----------------------------------------------------------
Ship it! +1 on commit. Suggestion on how to make some minor savings. Go ahead and commit with if it makes sense to you (or do w/o the suggestion). src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/StoreScanner.java <http://review.hbase.org/r/376/#comment1902> Consider using method Ryan added today: public boolean matchingRows(final KeyValue left, final byte [] right) { Then you could do if (!KeyValue.matchingRows(matcher.row, peeked) .. and only do a peeked.getRow when you know you've changed rows.. Might same a bit of byte array making. - stack On 2010-07-22 22:28:14, Andrew Purtell wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://review.hbase.org/r/376/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated 2010-07-22 22:28:14) > > > Review request for hbase. > > > Summary > ------- > > Query matcher will be confused if intra-row scanning. Avoid calling setRow() > if the row has not changed. This requires a string comparison per next(). > > > This addresses bug HBASE-1537. > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-1537 > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/StoreScanner.java > dc2e234 > > Diff: http://review.hbase.org/r/376/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Andrew > >
