[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9091?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13725948#comment-13725948
]
Matt Corgan commented on HBASE-9091:
------------------------------------
Yeah, it's a tough trade-off with the additional O(n). Overall, I'm not saying
you shouldn't use a positioned data structure for this use case, just that
there's also merit to having a data structure that doesn't track position (and
doesn't do bounds checking), which is what the ByteRange is. I was thinking we
could have separate classes. It's not a big deal though - it won't break
anything, and if the bounds checking hurts performance I can repair it easily.
> Update ByteRange to maintain consumer's position
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-9091
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9091
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Client
> Reporter: Nick Dimiduk
> Assignee: Nick Dimiduk
> Fix For: 0.95.2
>
> Attachments: 0001-HBASE-9091-Extend-ByteRange.patch,
> 0001-HBASE-9091-Extend-ByteRange.patch
>
>
> ByteRange is a useful alternative to Java's ByteBuffer. Notably, it is
> mutable and an instance can be assigned over a byte[] after instantiation.
> This is valuable as a performance consideration when working with byte[]
> slices in a tight loop. Its current design is such that it is not possible to
> consume a portion of the range while performing activities like decoding an
> object without altering the definition of the range. It should provide a
> position that is independent from the range's offset and length to make
> partial reads easier.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
