Thanks for your quick reply Arvind, I'll use Sqoop 1 for now then, because automatic Hive schema definition is definitely a major boon to my use case.
As for which features I would need in order to move to Sqoop 2, I can't really say for sure. But since I'll start using Sqoop 1, then I guess I'll get a better idea as I go along... Thanks again, -- Felix On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Arvind Prabhakar <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Felix, > > Thanks for using Sqoop and providing your feedback. You are right that > Sqoop 1.4.2 is the same Sqoop you tried out before, and is much more stable > and functional than before. You are welcome to use and we will try our best > to fix any issues with it that you may run into. > > Regarding Sqoop 2, it just made its debut and you are welcome to try it. > But as its release version (1.99.1) indicates - this is not yet at the 2.0 > level and as such is missing features. One of these missing features at > this time is Hive integration. > > Going forward, we will try to prioritize these missing features based on > what the community's prioritization, so if you could send in a list of > things you would like to be addressed, that will be great. > > Regards, > Arvind Prabhakar > > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Felix GV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> For example, looking at the options I have when creating a job in the >> sqoop2 shell, it seems there is no Hive support yet. Is that correct? >> >> Thanks :) ! >> >> -- >> Felix >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Felix GV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hello :) >>> >>> I've played around with Sqoop 1 a fair while ago (possibly before Apache >>> incubation) around the time of CDH3u3. There were a few minor kinks at the >>> time but overall it seemed to be already pretty good and stable at the >>> time, so I'm assuming Sqoop 1.4.2 can only be a lot better. >>> >>> I didn't end up needing Sqopp for my use cases after I experimented with >>> it at the time, but I'm now revisiting it and I just found out Sqoop 2 is >>> in the works. >>> >>> I'm now using CDH 4.1.2 and I'm planning to upgrade to the latest (CDH >>> 4.2) soon, which includes the first release of Sqoop 2 (1.99.1). >>> >>> I've read the architecture design articles and I think we could benefit >>> from some of the new capabilities. I've also scoured the last few months of >>> the (user) mailing list archive but haven't found much discussion regarding >>> Sqoop 2, besides the >>> announcement<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/sqoop-user/201212.mbox/%3C20121226063212.GB28520%40jarcec-thinkpad%3E>and >>> a post saying the Web >>> UI isn't >>> included<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/sqoop-user/201211.mbox/%3C20121128161809.GE6589%40jarcec-thinkpad%3E> >>> . >>> >>> I don't mind not having the Web UI yet, but I want to automate a couple >>> of Sqoop-based ETL scripts, and if there are any differences between the >>> way Sqoop 1 and 2 scripts are specified or used, then I'd like to start >>> doing them the version 2 way, so that my infrastructure is more future >>> proof. >>> >>> This, of course, is assuming the non-web UI capabilities of Sqoop 2 are >>> mature enough for general usage. >>> >>> Can anyone comment on Sqoop 2's maturity? >>> >>> Should I subscribe to the dev mailing list instead if I'm interested in >>> Sqoop 2, or is the user list the right place for general (non-dev) related >>> Sqoop 2 questions? >>> >>> Thanks a lot guys (and gals?!) !! >>> >>> -- >>> Felix >>> >> >> >
