To be clearer about the ambiguous +1, we're using Pig 0.8, hbase 0.89
something something, and a modified version of HBaseStorage. Anything
to clean that up gets a +1 from me.
--jacob
@thedatachef
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 14, 2011, at 9:10 AM, Dan Harvey <[email protected]> wrote:
We're still using HBase 0.20.6 with Pig 0.6 and we'll be upgrading to
Pig 0.8 soon, but a HBase 0.90 is planned for us soon too so we should
be on that before we need to upgrade to Pig > 0.8.
How serious is the HBaseStorage in 0.8? Should we wait for 0.8.1
before upgrading?
Eitherway I think for us upgrading to HBase 0.90 is more important as
you say, so we can always upgrade to Pig 0.8.1 at the same time, so
I've got no problem with it requiring HBase 0.90.
Thanks,
On 14 February 2011 05:43, Bill Graham <[email protected]> wrote:
+1
On Sunday, February 13, 2011, Jacob Perkins <[email protected]
> wrote:
+1
--jacob
@thedatachef
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 13, 2011, at 7:41 PM, Dmitriy Ryaboy <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi folks,
Is anyone who uses HBaseStorage in Pig still on hbase 0.20.6?
There are a number of tickets outstanding to improve HBaseStorage
and
I've suggested that we should add a shim layer to work between the
different versions, but it's a big pain to do. I'd rather just
move on
to supporting 0.90 only. We just upgraded Twitter's HBase version
last
week and it's oh-my-god better in terms of stability, and the
upgrade
was pretty smooth.. Objections?
If everyone is ok with that for Pig 0.9 -- how about Pig 0.8.1?
There
are a number of bug fixes for 0.8 already in the branch, and
there's a
pretty critical HBaseStorage bug fix that needs to go in, as well.
Would it be too surprising if 0.8 started requiring a different
version of hbase all of a sudden when you upgrade a minor version?
D
--
Dan Harvey | Datamining Engineer
www.mendeley.com/profiles/dan-harvey
Mendeley Limited | London, UK | www.mendeley.com
Registered in England and Wales | Company Number 6419015
