accumulo-notifications mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Adam Fuchs (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-1833) MultiTableBatchWriterImpl.getBatchWriter() is not performant for multiple threads
Date Mon, 04 Nov 2013 23:52:17 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1833?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13813431#comment-13813431
] 

Adam Fuchs commented on ACCUMULO-1833:
--------------------------------------

bq. A simple way to avoid this extra work would be to make the cache in MultiTableBatchWriter
use table names instead of table ids (the lookup in the cache could be done immediately and
if a hash map was used would have constant time cost). But that change in behavior could break
any existing code that relies on the current late binding of the table name to table id.

Since the late binding is eventually consistent anyway, can't we make a time-sensitive cache
(i.e. hold on to things for 5 seconds) that maintains the same semantics and still fixes this
performance issue?

> MultiTableBatchWriterImpl.getBatchWriter() is not performant for multiple threads
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ACCUMULO-1833
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1833
>             Project: Accumulo
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>    Affects Versions: 1.5.0, 1.6.0
>            Reporter: Chris McCubbin
>         Attachments: ACCUMULO-1833-test.patch, ZooKeeperThreadUtilization.png
>
>
> This issue comes from profiling our application. We have a MultiTableBatchWriter created
by normal means. I am attempting to write to it with multiple threads by doing things like
the following:
> {code}
> batchWriter.getBatchWriter(table).addMutations(mutations);
> {code}
> In my test with 4 threads writing to one table, this call is quite inefficient and results
in a large performance degradation over a single BatchWriter.
> I believe the culprit is the fact that the call is synchronized. Also there is the possibility
that the zookeeper call to Tables.getTableState on every call is negatively affecting performance:
> {code}
>   @Override
>   public synchronized BatchWriter getBatchWriter(String tableName) throws AccumuloException,
AccumuloSecurityException, TableNotFoundException {
>     ArgumentChecker.notNull(tableName);
>     String tableId = Tables.getNameToIdMap(instance).get(tableName);
>     if (tableId == null)
>       throw new TableNotFoundException(tableId, tableName, null);
>     
>     if (Tables.getTableState(instance, tableId) == TableState.OFFLINE)
>       throw new TableOfflineException(instance, tableId);
>     
>     BatchWriter tbw = tableWriters.get(tableId);
>     if (tbw == null) {
>       tbw = new TableBatchWriter(tableId);
>       tableWriters.put(tableId, tbw);
>     }
>     return tbw;
>   }
> {code}
> I recommend moving the synchronized block to happen only if the batchwriter is not present,
and also only checking if the table is online at that time:
> {code}
>   @Override
>   public BatchWriter getBatchWriter(String tableName) throws AccumuloException, AccumuloSecurityException,
TableNotFoundException {
>     ArgumentChecker.notNull(tableName);
>     String tableId = Tables.getNameToIdMap(instance).get(tableName);
>     if (tableId == null)
>       throw new TableNotFoundException(tableId, tableName, null);
>     BatchWriter tbw = tableWriters.get(tableId);
>     if (tbw == null) {
>       if (Tables.getTableState(instance, tableId) == TableState.OFFLINE)
>           throw new TableOfflineException(instance, tableId);
>       tbw = new TableBatchWriter(tableId);
>       synchronized(tableWriters){
>           //only create a new table writer if we haven't been beaten to it.
>           if (tableWriters.get(tableId) == null)      
>               tableWriters.put(tableId, tbw);
>       }
>     }
>     return tbw;
>   }
> {code}



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)

Mime
View raw message