Seems to me this would be fixed by HBASE-1485. There should be no difference whether you are updating one version or multiple, a fix for HBASE-1485 would address either.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jean- > Daniel Cryans > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:47 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Update 2 versions of a cell : same issue as HBASE-1485 ? > > I think that this is stretching the usage of timestamps... but would > you be able to write a small unit test that demonstrates it? Also did > you try it on both 0.20 and 0.89? > > Thx, > > J-D > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 6:18 AM, Evert Arckens <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have a scenario of which I'm not sure if it is just another example > of > > issue HBASE-1485, or if it is another but related issue : > > > > Write 3 cells of a column, at timestamp 1, 2 and 3. > > Then update the cells at timestamp 1 and 2 (more or less at the same > > moment). > > > > Result is that the update of the cell at timestamp 1 gets lost. > > If I would perform a major compaction between both updates, the > update on > > timestamp 1 wouldn't get lost. > > > > The reason I'm not sure if it is exactly the same issue as HBASE-1485 > is > > because that one just talks about updates on 1 cell, not on a > combination > > updates on 2 cells at different timestamps. > > > > Regards, > > Evert Arckens. > >
