[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8458?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15969584#comment-15969584
]
Andrew Purtell edited comment on HBASE-8458 at 4/14/17 9:59 PM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
No complaints, except for a small nit.
We use "mutation" instead of "mutate" as a verb here and there in the codebase.
It's not grammatically correct, at least in American and British English. In an
API this matters. Call the action CheckAndRowMutate.
Naming a state carrying object like 'RowMutations' is fine, this is a noun.
was (Author: apurtell):
No complaints, except for a small nit.
We use "mutation" instead of "mutate" as a verb here and there in the codebase.
It's not grammatically correct, at least in American and British English. In an
API this matters. Call it CheckAndRowMutate.
> Support for batch version of checkAndPut() and checkAndDelete()
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-8458
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8458
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Client, regionserver
> Affects Versions: 0.95.0
> Reporter: Hari Mankude
>
> The use case is that the user has multiple threads loading hundreds of keys
> into a hbase table. Occasionally there are collisions in the keys being
> uploaded by different threads. So for correctness, it is required to do
> checkAndPut() instead of a put(). However, doing a checkAndPut() rpc for
> every key update is non optimal. It would be good to have a batch version of
> checkAndPut() similar to batch put(). The client can partition the keys on
> region boundaries.
> The jira is NOT looking for any type of cross-row locking or multi-row
> atomicity with checkAndPut()
> Batch version of checkAndDelete() is a similar requirement.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
