[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15515709#comment-15515709
]
Yu Li commented on HBASE-15921:
-------------------------------
bq. For batch operation, I think we should still start from beginning as
regions maybe moved...
Yes, but if we still use a unified array for the overall results, this "start
from beginning" could be a regroup-and-submit action only for the *failed*
actions.
bq. And for scan, as now we have heartbeat which makes it different from other
operations, we would better revisit the timeout semantic of it.
Agreed, async scan is something I still haven't touched in my local
implementation.
> Add first AsyncTable impl and create TableImpl based on it
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-15921
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15921
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 2.0.0
> Reporter: Jurriaan Mous
> Assignee: Duo Zhang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-15921-v2.patch, HBASE-15921.demo.patch,
> HBASE-15921.patch, HBASE-15921.v1.patch
>
>
> First we create an AsyncTable interface with implementation without the Scan
> functionality. Those will land in a separate patch since they need a refactor
> of existing scans.
> Also added is a new TableImpl to replace HTable. It uses the AsyncTableImpl
> internally and should be a bit faster because it does jump through less hoops
> to do ProtoBuf transportation. This way we can run all existing tests on the
> AsyncTableImpl to guarantee its quality.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
