[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6580?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13501302#comment-13501302
]
Lars Hofhansl commented on HBASE-6580:
--------------------------------------
Not really. After HBASE-4805 you'd create a single HConnection (via
HConnectionManager.createConnection(...)) and then use this for each HTable
created afterwards. HTable creation is very cheap when both HConnection and
ExecutorService are passed... Cheaper indeed than then the HTablePool protocol.
Maybe HConnection should just finally get a getTable(...) method.
> New HTable pool, based on HBase(byte[], HConnection, ExecutorService)
> constructor
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-6580
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6580
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 0.92.2, 0.94.2
> Reporter: Lars Hofhansl
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: HBASE-6580_v1.patch
>
>
> Here I propose a very simple TablePool.
> It could be called LightHTablePool (or something - if you have a better name).
> Internally it would maintain an HConnection and an Executor service and each
> invocation of getTable(...) would create a new HTable and close() would just
> close it.
> In testing I find this more light weight than HTablePool and easier to
> monitor in terms of resources used.
> It would hardly be more than a few dozen lines of code.
--
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
