accumulo-notifications mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Keith Turner (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-1833) MultiTableBatchWriterImpl.getBatchWriter() is not performant for multiple threads
Date Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:39:38 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1833?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13821431#comment-13821431
] 

Keith Turner commented on ACCUMULO-1833:
----------------------------------------

[~elserj] I will take a look at it.  I ran some numbers on long overflow out of curiosity.
  If someone incremented the counter every milliseconds it would take 1.3 galactic years to
overflow.  If someone incremented the counter every nano second it would take 292 years to
overflow.

> 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
>            Assignee: Josh Elser
>         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