hey st.ack well i am considering creating lots of deletes from a map-reduce job instead of puts, and was looking at the code to see how efficient that would be...
but now i am more generally wondering if there is any downside to making all these operations go into the buffer instead of treating puts special. On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Koert Kuipers <[email protected]> wrote > > > > i noticed that puts are put into a bugger (writeAsyncBuffer) that gets > > flushed if it gets to a certain size. > > writeAsyncBuffer can take objects of type Row, which includes besides the > > Put also Deletes, Appends, and RowMutations. > > > > but when i look at the code for the delete method it does not use > > writeAsyncBuffer. same for append and mutateRow methods. why do Puts get > > buffered but other mutations do not? or did i misunderstand? > > > > > This is how it 'evolved'. What are you thinking Koert? We should probably > be clearer in javadoc about the sequence in which these ops can go over to > the server. > > Serverside, it doesn't care what is in the batch. It will just work its > way through the 'Rows' as they come in. > > St.Ack >
