accumulo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Billie Rinaldi <billie.rina...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: How to remove entire row at the server side?
Date Wed, 06 Nov 2013 20:43:55 GMT
Is there a typo in the package name?  One place says "com" and the other
"org".


On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Terry P. <texpilot@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi William, many thanks for the explanation of scan time versus compaction
> time. I'll look through the classes again and note where the remove versus
> suppress wordings are used and open a ticket.
>
> As mentioned, I only dabble in java, but regardless of that fact at this
> point I'm the one that has to get this done. I've hobbled together my first
> attempt, but I get the following error where I try to add it as a scan
> iterator for testing:
>
> root@meta> setiter -class
> org.esa.accumulo.iterators.ExpirationTimestampPurgeFilter -n expTsFilter -p
> 20 -scan -t itertest
> 2013-11-06 14:06:34,914 [shell.Shell] ERROR:
> org.apache.accumulo.core.util.shell.ShellCommandException: Command could
> not be initialized (Servers are unable to load
> org.esa.accumulo.iterators.ExpirationTimestampPurgeFilter as type
> org.apache.accumulo.core.iterators.SortedKeyValueIterator)
>
> Here's my source.  Note that the value stored in the expTs ColFam is in
> the format "yyyyMMddHHmmssS", which I convert to a long for a direct
> comparison to System.currentTimeMillis(). I only overrode the init and
> acceptRow methods, hoping the others would work as-is from the base class.
>
> One clarification: turns out expTs is the ColumnFamily, and the ingest app
> does not assign a ColumnQualifier for expTs. So to amend my prior table
> layout (including the datetime format):
>
>
> Format: Key:CF:CQ:Value
> abc:data:title:"My fantastic data"
> abc:data:content:<bytedata>
> abc:creTs::20130804171412445
> abc:*expTs*::20131104171412445
> ... 6-8 more columns of data per row ...
>
> where *expTs* is the ColumnFamily to determine if the entire row should
> be removed based on whether its value is <= NOW.  If a row has not yet been
> assigned an expiration date, expTs will not be set and the ColumnFamily
> will not yet be present.  Seems like an odd choice to use distinct Column
> Families, without Column Qualifiers, but that's how the ingest app was done.
>
> I greatly appreciate any advice you can provide.
>
> package com.esa.accumulo.iterators;
>
> import java.io.IOException;
> import java.text.ParseException;
> import java.text.SimpleDateFormat;
> import java.util.Date;
> import java.util.Map;
>
> import org.apache.accumulo.core.data.Key;
> import org.apache.accumulo.core.data.Value;
> import org.apache.accumulo.core.iterators.IteratorEnvironment;
> import org.apache.accumulo.core.iterators.SortedKeyValueIterator;
> import org.apache.accumulo.core.iterators.user.RowFilter;
>
> /**
>  * A filter that removes rows based on the column designated as the
> "expiration timestamp" column family.
>  *
>  * It removes the row if the value in the expirationTimestamp column is
> less than currentTime.
>  *
>  * TODO: The designation of the expirationTimestamp ColumnFamily and its
> DateFormat is
>  * set in the iterator options when the iterator is applied to the table.
> (For
>  * now it is hardcoded to match the format used in the Solr-Accumulo
> plugin)
>  */
> public class ExpirationTimestampPurgeFilter extends RowFilter {
>   private long currentTime;
>   // TODO: make accumuloDateFormat settable via Iterator Options
>   // Date Format for Expiration Timestamp ColumnFamily stored in Accumulo
>   private String expTsDateFormat = "yyyyMMddHHmmssS";
>   SimpleDateFormat df = new SimpleDateFormat(expTsDateFormat);
>
>   // TODO: make expTs settable via Iterator Options
>   // ColumnFamily containing Expiration Timestamp value (note ingest app
>   // did NOT assign a ColumnQualifier, only a ColumnFamily)
>   private String expTsColFam = "expTs";
>
>   @Override
>   public boolean acceptRow(SortedKeyValueIterator<Key, Value> rowIterator)
>     throws IOException {
>
>     if
> (rowIterator.getTopKey().getColumnFamily().toString().equals(expTsColFam)) {
>        Date expTsDate = null;
>        try {
>          expTsDate = df.parse(rowIterator.getTopValue().toString());
>            if (expTsDate.getTime() < currentTime)
>              return false;
>        } catch (ParseException e) {
>          // TODO Auto-generated catch block
>          e.printStackTrace();
>        }
>     }
>     return true;
>   }
>
>   @Override
>   public void init(SortedKeyValueIterator<Key, Value> source,
>       Map<String, String> options, IteratorEnvironment env) throws
> IOException {
>     super.init(source, options, env);
>     currentTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
>   }
>
> }
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 8:48 PM, William Slacum <
> wilhelm.von.cloud@accumulo.net> wrote:
>
>> If an iterator is only set at scan time, then its logic will only be
>> applied when a client scans the table. The data will persist through major
>> and minor compaction and be visible if you scanned the RFile(s) backing the
>> table. "Suppress" is the better word in this case. Would you please open a
>> ticket pointing us where to update the documentation?
>>
>> It looks like you'd want to implement a RowFilter for your use case. It
>> has the necessary hooks to avoid reading a whole row into memory and
>> handling the logic of determining whether or not to write keys that occur
>> before the column you're filtering on (at the cost of reading those keys
>> twice).
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Terry P. <texpilot@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Greetings everyone,
>>> I'm looking at the AgeOffFilter as a base from which to write a
>>> server-side filter / iterator to purge rows when they have aged off based
>>> on the value of a specific column in the row (expiry datetime <= now). So
>>> this differs from the AgeOffFilter in that the criterion for removal is
>>> from the same column in every row (not the Accumulo timestamp for an
>>> individual entry), and we need to remove the entire row not just individual
>>> entries. For example:
>>>
>>> Format: Key:CF:CQ:Value
>>> abc:data:title:"My fantastic data"
>>> abc:data:content:<bytedata>
>>> abc:data:creTs:2013-08-04T17:14:12Z
>>> abc:data:*expTs*:2013-11-04T17:14:12Z
>>> ... 6-8 more columns of data per row ...
>>>
>>> where *expTs* is the column to determine if the entire row should be
>>> removed based on whether its value is <= NOW.
>>>
>>> This task seemed easy enough as a client program (and it is really), but
>>> a server-side iterator would be far more efficient than sending millions of
>>> rowkeys across the network just to delete them (we'll be deleting more than
>>> a million every hour).  But I'm struggling to get there.
>>>
>>> In looking at AgeOffFilter.java, is the "magic" in the AgeOffFilter
>>> class that removes (deletes) an entry from a table the fact that the accept
>>> method returns false, combined with the fact that the iterator would be set
>>> to run at -majc or -minc time and it is the compaction code that actually
>>> deletes the entry?  If set to run only at scan time, would AgeOffFilter
>>> simply not return the rows during the scan, but not delete them?  The
>>> wording in the iterator classes varies, some saying "remove" others say
>>> "suppress" so it's not clear to me
>>>
>>> If that's the case, then I think I know where to implement the logic.
>>> The question is, how can I remove all the entries for the row once the
>>> accept method has determined it meets the criteria?
>>>
>>> Or as Mike Drob mentioned in a prior post, will basing my class on the
>>> RowFilter class instead of just Filter make things easier?  Or the
>>> WholeRowIterator?  Just trying to find the simplest solution.
>>>
>>> Sorry for what may be obvious questions but I'm more of a DB Architect
>>> that does some coding, and not a Java programmer by trade. With all of the
>>> amazing things Accumulo does, honestly I was surprised when I couldn't find
>>> a way to delete rows in the shell by criteria other than the rowkey!  I'm
>>> more used to having a shell to 'delete from *table *where *column *<=
>>> *value*'.
>>>
>>> But looking at it now, everyone's criteria for deletion will likely be
>>> different given the flexibility of a key=>value store.  If our rowkey had
>>> the date/timestamp as a prefix, I know an easy deletemany command in the
>>> shell would do the trick -- but the nature of the data is such that
>>> initially no expiration timestamp is set, and there is no means to update
>>> the key from the client app when expiration timestamp finally gets set (too
>>> much rework on that common tool I'm afraid).
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message