Thanks Billie and Christopher, sounds like I should have the purge iterator run after the VersioningIterator.
Keith, uh oh, I was not aware that not all compactions will see the entire row. That sounds like it could be bad for my case! Here is the original thread that you helped me with as background: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/accumulo-user/201311.mbox/%3ccagutchryw3rr9pf5bad+psxe-dswl9fyogvv5mn_wj00o2m...@mail.gmail.com%3E We only have 10-12 k/v pairs per row -- is that a factor? Can you explain the nuances with respect to when a compaction won't see the entire row? Thanks, Terry On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Keith Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Terry P. <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Greetings all, >> With Accumulo v1.4.2, we have a purge filter/iterator that extents >> RowFilter and I have a question about what priority it should be >> implemented with. I see the default VersioningIterator runs at priority 20. >> >> Our purge iterator is designed to suppress (scan time) or remove (majc or >> minc compactions) rows based on the value in a column. Is it more efficient >> to run our purge iterator at a higher priority than the VersioningIterator, >> or does it >> > > Are you aware that not all compactions will see the entire row? > > >> really matter? Our VersioningIterator maxVersions is set to the default >> of 1 which is what we want/need. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> Terry >> > >
