[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-82?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
stack updated HBASE-82:
-----------------------
Resolution: Fixed
Status: Resolved (was: Patch Available)
Committed.
> row keys should be array of bytes
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-82
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-82
> Project: Hadoop HBase
> Issue Type: Wish
> Reporter: Jim Kellerman
> Assignee: stack
> Fix For: 0.2.0
>
> Attachments: 82-v12-ignore-ws.patch, 82-v13-ignore-ws.patch,
> 82-v2.patch, 82-v3.patch, 82-v4.patch, 82-v5.patch, 82-v7.patch, 82-v8.patch,
> 82-v9-ignore-ws.patch, 82.patch, Perf.java
>
>
> I have heard from several people that row keys in HBase should be less
> restricted than hadoop.io.Text.
> What do you think?
> At the very least, a row key has to be a WritableComparable. This would lead
> to the most general case being either hadoop.io.BytesWritable or
> hbase.io.ImmutableBytesWritable. The primary difference between these two
> classes is that hadoop.io.BytesWritable by default allocates 100 bytes and if
> you do not pay attention to the length, (BytesWritable.getSize()), converting
> a String to a BytesWritable and vice versa can become problematic.
> hbase.io.ImmutableBytesWritable, in contrast only allocates as many bytes as
> you pass in and then does not allow the size to be changed.
> If we were to change from Text to a non-text key, my preference would be for
> ImmutableBytesWritable, because it has a fixed size once set, and operations
> like get, etc do not have to something like System.arrayCopy where you
> specify the number of bytes to copy.
> Your comments, questions are welcome on this issue. If we receive enough
> feedback that Text is too restrictive, we are willing to change it, but we
> need to hear what would be the most useful thing to change it to as well.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
