Ted, should we have such test in the test suite? If so, should a JIRA be opened for that?
JM 2013/4/6 Ted Yu <[email protected]>: > Christophe: > HBASE-5257 has been integrated into 0.94 > Can you try 0.94.6.1 to see if the problem is solved ? > > Writing a unit test probably is the easiest way for validation. > > Thanks > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Varun Sharma <[email protected]> wrote: > >> HBASE 5257 is probably what lars is talking about - that fixed a bug with >> version tracking on ColumnPaginatinoFilter - there is a patch for 0.92, >> 0.94 and 0.96 but not for the cdh versions... >> >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:28 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Normally Filters are evaluated before the version counting. There was >> some >> > issue that was fixed recently that changed this behavior specifically for >> > ColumnPaginationFilters and friend... Lemme see if I can find that. >> > >> > >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > From: Stack <[email protected]> >> > To: Hbase-User <[email protected]> >> > Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 3:05 PM >> > Subject: Re: Interactions between max versions and filters >> > >> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Christophe Taton <[email protected] >> > >wrote: >> > >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > Is there an explicit specification of the behavior of max versions (set >> > in >> > > a get/scan) when combined with filters? >> > > From my experiments (with 0.92 CDH4.1.2), the max versions is applied >> in >> > a >> > > way that is neither pre-filtering nor post-filtering. >> > > In particular, I am currently playing with the ColumnPaginationFilter, >> > and >> > > I am not entirely certain I understand the intended/expected behavior. >> > > I also did not find an explicit specification in the reference user >> guide >> > > nor in the API javadoc. >> > > >> > >> > >> > Hey Christophe: >> > >> > Sounds like a bug. My understanding is that the regardless of filters, >> max >> > versions should be respected (Yes, we should have a specification but we >> do >> > not have one here). >> > >> > Yours, >> > St.Ack >> > >>
