[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24302?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17099885#comment-17099885
]
Hudson commented on HBASE-24302:
--------------------------------
Results for branch master
[build #1717 on
builds.a.o|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/master/1717/]: (/)
*{color:green}+1 overall{color}*
----
details (if available):
(/) {color:green}+1 general checks{color}
-- For more information [see general
report|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/master/1717/General_20Nightly_20Build_20Report/]
(/) {color:green}+1 jdk8 hadoop3 checks{color}
-- For more information [see jdk8 (hadoop3)
report|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/master/1717/JDK8_20Nightly_20Build_20Report_20_28Hadoop3_29/]
(/) {color:green}+1 jdk11 hadoop3 checks{color}
-- For more information [see jdk11
report|https://builds.apache.org/job/HBase%20Nightly/job/master/1717/JDK11_20Nightly_20Build_20Report_20_28Hadoop3_29/]
(/) {color:green}+1 source release artifact{color}
-- See build output for details.
(/) {color:green}+1 client integration test{color}
> Add an "ignoreTimestamps" option (defaulted to false) to HashTable/SyncTable
> tool
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-24302
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24302
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 3.0.0-alpha-1, 2.3.0, 2.2.5
> Reporter: Wellington Chevreuil
> Assignee: Wellington Chevreuil
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 3.0.0-alpha-1, 2.3.0, 2.4.0, 2.2.5
>
>
> Currently, when hashing and comparing values between a source and a target
> table, HashTable/SyncTable always consider cell timestamp values. However,
> cell timestamp values are not always relevant for client applications, so
> these use cases could benefit of a more flexible comparison logic where
> timestamps could be ignored.
> For such scenarios, HashTable/SyncTable could have better performance, since
> cells with only timestamps diverging would not be copied.
> Another case that would benefit from this option is when bulk deletes are
> wrongly applied at target. At the moment, HashTable/SyncTable on it's own is
> not capable of syncing back the clusters, as the source Puts would have an
> older TS than the delete markers in the target. That would require target to
> complete major compaction on the whole table before HashTable/SyncTable could
> be run.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
