Clint Morgan wrote:
...
This scanner would have a significant client-side component to do the
arbitrage between all regions to figure the lowest column value? If you had
a new type of 'region' -- one denoted by lowest and upper column then the
client-side logic would fade away and your scanner would look like current
scanners.
Is this essentially the same as Bryan's suggestion of just maintaining
another hbase table?
No. Currently client proceeds through regions in order by asking the
.META. for next region each time its done w/ the current one. You do
not have an authority like .META. to ask, not unless you did Bryan's
suggestion (My undeveloped notion was some messy facade on Regions that
would answer the "whats your lowest/highest column?" for the aggregating
client).
St.Ack
