Hi
>> i have some hypothesis, but it's only my speculation :
>>
>> i think that, when i call scanner.iterator().hasNext() it has to check
>> all rows in the table to find (or not) next rowId (because hasnext time
>> rise in line correlation with a table size). Maby problem is in sorting
>> rowId in the table?
>>
> Scanners march step through the memcache and files in the filesystem.
When you call hasNext, open iterators are moved to the next row. There
should not be full region/table scanning going on per hasNext call.
>
yes i see, but i checked it and time is longer when i have more rows in
table. there is linear dependence between number of rows and query
time.
i can try to make sample application, if you want.
> Are you using filters per chance?
yes - but i try to use different filters : PageRowFilter,
StopRowFilter, and my own : PageStopRowFilter - it doesn't change
hasNext time.
> Thanks for doing this investigation. Which version are you currently
on? 0.1.2?
>
i use 0.2.0 dev from trunk ( but not realy fresh version - it has a
two or 3 weeks old)
Antony
