Sorry, typo, i meant that for user scans, should we be passing delete markers through.the filters as well ?
Varun On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Varun Sharma <[email protected]> wrote: > For user scans, i feel we should be passing delete markers through as well. > > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Varun Sharma <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I tried this a little bit and it seems that filters are not called on >> delete markers. For raw scans returning delete markers, does it make sense >> to do that ? >> >> Varun >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Varun Sharma <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> We are having an issue with the way HBase does handling of deletes. We >>> are looking to retrieve 300 columns in a row but the row has tens of >>> thousands of delete markers in it before we span the 300 columns something >>> like this >>> >>> >>> row DeleteCol1 Col1 DeleteCol2 Col2 ................... DeleteCol3 Col3 >>> >>> And so on. Therefore, the issue here, being that to retrieve these 300 >>> columns, we need to go through tens of thousands of deletes - sometimes we >>> get a spurt of these queries and that DDoSes a region server. We are okay >>> with saying, only return first 300 columns and stop once you encounter, say >>> 5K column delete markers or something. >>> >>> I wonder if such a construct is provided by HBase or do we need to build >>> something on top of the RAW scan and handle the delete masking there. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Varun >>> >>> >>> >> >
