accumulo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anthony Fox <adfaccu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Performance of table with large number of column families
Date Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:18:25 GMT
Ah, ok, I was under the impression that this would be really fast since I
have a column family bloom filter turned on.  Is this not correct?


On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:15 PM, William Slacum <
wilhelm.von.cloud@accumulo.net> wrote:

> When I said smaller of tablets, I really mean smaller number of rows :) My
> apologies.
>
> So if you're searching for a random column family in a table, like with a
> `scan -c <cf>` in the shell, it will start at row 0 and work sequentially
> up to row 10000000 until it finds the cf.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Anthony Fox <adfaccuser@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This scan is without the intersecting iterator.  I'm just trying to pull
>> back a single data record at the moment which corresponds to scanning for
>> one column family.  I'll try with a smaller number of tablets, but is the
>> computation effort the same for the scan I am doing?
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:02 PM, William Slacum <
>> wilhelm.von.cloud@accumulo.net> wrote:
>>
>>> So that means you have roughly 312.5k rows per tablet, which means about
>>> 725k column families in any given tablet. The intersecting iterator will
>>> work at a row per time, so I think at any given moment, it will be working
>>> through 32 at a time and doing a linear scan through the RFile blocks. With
>>> RFile indices, that check is usually pretty fast, but you're having go
>>> through 4 orders of magnitude more data sequentially than you can work on.
>>> If you can experiment and re-ingest with a smaller number of tablets,
>>> anywhere between 15 and 45, I think you will see better performance.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Anthony Fox <adfaccuser@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Failed to answer the original question - 15 tablet servers, 32
>>>> tablets/splits.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Anthony Fox <adfaccuser@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've tried a number of different settings of table.split.threshold. 
I
>>>>> started at 1G and bumped it down to 128M and the cf scan is still ~30
>>>>> seconds for both.  I've also used less rows - 00000 to 99999 and still
see
>>>>> similar performance numbers.  I thought the column family bloom filter
>>>>> would help deal with large row space but sparsely populated column space.
>>>>>  Is that correct?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:49 AM, William Slacum <
>>>>> wilhelm.von.cloud@accumulo.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm more inclined to believe it's because you have to search across
>>>>>> 10M different rows to find any given column family, since they're
randomly,
>>>>>> and possibly uniformly, distributed. How many tablets are you searching
>>>>>> across?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Anthony Fox <adfaccuser@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, there are 10M possible partitions.  I do not have a hash
from
>>>>>>> value to partition, the data is essentially randomly balanced
across all
>>>>>>> the tablets.  Unlike the bloom filter and intersecting iterator
examples, I
>>>>>>> do not have locality groups turned on and I have data in the
cq and the
>>>>>>> value for both index entries and record entries.  Could this
be the issue?
>>>>>>>  Each record entry has approximately 30 column qualifiers with
data in the
>>>>>>> value for each.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:41 AM, William Slacum <
>>>>>>> wilhelm.von.cloud@accumulo.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess assuming you have 10M possible partitions, if you're
using
>>>>>>>> a relatively uniform hash to generate your IDs, you'll average
about 2 per
>>>>>>>> partition. Do you have any index for term/value to partition?
This will
>>>>>>>> help you narrow down your search space to a subset of your
partitions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:39 AM, William Slacum <
>>>>>>>> wilhelm.von.cloud@accumulo.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That shouldn't be a huge issue. How many rows/partitions
do you
>>>>>>>>> have? How many do you have to scan to find the specific
column family/doc
>>>>>>>>> id you want?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Anthony Fox <adfaccuser@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have a table set up to use the intersecting iterator
pattern.  The
>>>>>>>>>> table has about 20M records which leads to 20M column
families for the
>>>>>>>>>> data section - 1 unique column family per record.
 The index section of
>>>>>>>>>> the table is not quite as large as the data section.
 The rowkey is a
>>>>>>>>>> random padded integer partition between 0000000 and
9999999.  I turned
>>>>>>>>>> bloom filters on and used the ColumnFamilyFunctor
to get performant
>>>>>>>>>> column family scans without specifying a range like
in the bloom filter
>>>>>>>>>> examples in the README.  However, my column family
scans (without any
>>>>>>>>>> custom iterator) are still fairly slow - ~30 seconds
for a column family
>>>>>>>>>> batch scan of one record. I've also tried RowFunctor
but I see similar
>>>>>>>>>> performance.  Can anyone shed any light on the performance
metrics I'm
>>>>>>>>>> seeing?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message