[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-4811?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13681891#comment-13681891
 ] 

chunhui shen commented on HBASE-4811:
-------------------------------------

bq.So would: ReversedRegionScanner -> KVHelp -> RerversedStoreScanner -> 
ReversedKVHeap -> (MemstoreScanner|StoreFileScanner) work?
Need ReversedRegionScanner -> ReversedKVHeap, because we need a reversed sort 
of scanners in ReversedKVHeap and call seekToPreviousRow for 
RegionScanner#nextRow, otherwise the scan order would be wrong.

bq.ReversedKeyValueHeap should not need backwardSeek, since all calls to 
(re)seek, etc, call backwardSeek anyway.
ReversedKeyValueHeap should support backwardSeek and seekToPreviousRow even if 
no calls. Is it better to understand that prohibit calling (re)seek in 
ReversedKeyValueHeap and ReversedStoreScanner

bq.do we need NonReversedNonLazyKeyValueScanner? Could add "unsupported" 
implementations for these methods to NonLazyKeyValueScanner.
MemStoreScanner extends from NonLazyKeyValueScanner, it seems not appropriate 
if add "unsupported" implementations to NonLazyKeyValueScanner
                
> Support reverse Scan
> --------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-4811
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-4811
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Client
>    Affects Versions: 0.20.6, 0.94.7
>            Reporter: John Carrino
>            Assignee: Liang Xie
>         Attachments: 4811-trunk-v10.txt, 4811-trunk-v5.patch, 
> HBase-4811-0.94.3modified.txt, HBase-4811-0.94-v2.txt, 
> hbase-4811-trunkv1.patch, hbase-4811-trunkv4.patch, hbase-4811-trunkv6.patch, 
> hbase-4811-trunkv7.patch, hbase-4811-trunkv8.patch, hbase-4811-trunkv9.patch
>
>
> All the documentation I find about HBase says that if you want forward and 
> reverse scans you should just build 2 tables and one be ascending and one 
> descending.  Is there a fundamental reason that HBase only supports forward 
> Scan?  It seems like a lot of extra space overhead and coding overhead (to 
> keep them in sync) to support 2 tables.  
> I am assuming this has been discussed before, but I can't find the 
> discussions anywhere about it or why it would be infeasible.

--
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

Reply via email to