accumulo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <>
Subject Re: Bug in either InMemoryMap or NativeMap
Date Fri, 19 Feb 2016 22:52:44 GMT
Dan, you're capable of opening an issue yourself, btw :)!default.jspa

It's nice to have the history that you did this great foot-work with 
your name as the reporter.

Dan Blum wrote:
> Yes, please open an issue for this.
> In the meantime, as a workaround is it safe to assign an arbitrary
> increasing timestamp when calling Mutation.put()? That seems the
> simplest way to get the ColumnUpdates to be treated properly.
> *From:*Keith Turner []
> *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 5:11 PM
> *To:*
> *Cc:* Jonathan Lasko; Maxwell Jordan;
> *Subject:* Re: Bug in either InMemoryMap or NativeMap
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Dan Blum <
> <>> wrote:
> (Resend: I forgot to actually subscribe before sending originally.)
> I noticed a difference in behavior between our cluster and our tests running
> on MiniCluster: when multiple put() calls are made to a Mutation with the
> same CF, CQ, and CV and no explicit timestamp, on a live cluster only the
> last one is written, whereas in Mini all of them are.
> Of course in most cases it wouldn't matter but if there is a Combiner set on
> the column (which is the case I am dealing with) then it does.
> I believe the difference in behavior is due to code in NativeMap._mutate and
> InMemoryMap.DefaultMap.mutate. In the former if there are multiple
> ColumnUpdates in a Mutation they all get written with the same mutationCount
> value; I haven't looked at the C++ map code but I assume that this means
> that entries with the same CF/CQ/CV/timestamp will overwrite each other. In
> contrast, in DefaultMap multiple ColumnUpdates are stored with an
> incrementing kvCount, so the keys will necessarily be distinct.
> You made this issue easy to track down.
> This seems like a bug w/ the native map. The code allocates a unique int
> for each key/value in the mutation.
> It seems like the native map code should increment like the DefaultMap
> code does. Specifically it seems like the following code should
> increment mutationCount (coordinating with the code that calls it)
> Would you like to open an issue in Jira?
>     My main question is: which of these is the intended behavior? We'll
>     obviously need to change our code to work with NativeMap's current
>     implementation regardless (since we don't want to use the Java maps on a
>     live cluster), but it would be useful to know if that change is
>     temporary or
>     permanent.
>     My secondary question is whether there is any trick to getting
>     native maps
>     to work in MiniCluster, which would be very helpful for our testing. I
>     changed the configuration XML we use and I can see that it picks up the
>     change - server.Accumulo logs "tserver.memory.maps.native.enabled =
>     true,"
>     but NativeMap never logs that it tries to load the library so the
>     setting
>     seems to be dropped somewhere.

View raw message