hitting back. - Piet Hein (via
Tom White)
- Original Message -
> From: Tom Brown
> To: user@hbase.apache.org; Andrew Purtell
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:37 AM
> Subject: Re: Add client complexity or use a coprocessor?
>
> Andy,
>
> Is the
an you think of an efficient way to implement an atomic bitfield
>>>> (other than adding it as a separate feature like atomic increments)?
>>>
>>> I think the idea of an atomic bitfield operation as part of the core API is
>>> intriguing. It has applicabi
k
>> of a couple of things I could use it for. If there is more support for this
>> idea, this may be something to consider.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>> - Andy
>>
>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - P
it for. If there is more support for this
> idea, this may be something to consider.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via
> Tom White)
>
>
>
> - Original Message ---
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via
> Tom White)
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: Tom Brown
>> To: user@hbase.apache.org; Andrew Purtell
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 10,
t;> Is there a way to extend the functionality of "Increment" to
> provide
>>> arbitrary bitwise operations on a the contents of a field?
>>
>> As a matter of design, this should be a new operation. It does sound
> interesting and useful, some sort of atomic
dy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via
> Tom White)
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: Tom Brown
>> To: user@hbase.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Monday, April 9, 2012 10:14 PM
>> Subject: Re: Ad
t;> >
> >> >The former is a round trip for each value update. The latter allows you
> >> to pack multiple updates
> >> >into a single round trip. This would give you accurate counts even with
> >> concurrent writers.
> >> >
> >> &
gt; From: Tom Brown
> To: user@hbase.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, April 9, 2012 10:14 PM
> Subject: Re: Add client complexity or use a coprocessor?
>
> Andy,
>
> I am a big fan of the Increment class. Unfortunately, I'm not doing
> simple increments for the v
>> >
>> >The former is a round trip for each value update. The latter allows you
>> to pack multiple updates
>> >into a single round trip. This would give you accurate counts even with
>> concurrent writers.
>> >
>> >It should be poss
el
> >requests colocate multiple updates to the same cube within some small
> window of time.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >
> >- Andy
> >
> >Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
> >
l
>requests colocate multiple updates to the same cube within some small window
>of time.
>
>Best regards,
>
>
>- Andy
>
>Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via
>Tom White)
>
>- Original Message -
>> From: Tom
From: Tom Brown
> To: user@hbase.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, April 9, 2012 9:48 AM
> Subject: Add client complexity or use a coprocessor?
>
> To whom it may concern,
>
> Ignoring the complexities of gathering the data, assume that I will be
> tracking millions of
13 matches
Mail list logo
