hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "stack (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (HBASE-1969) HBASE-1626 does not work as advertised due to lack of "instanceof" check in MR framework
Date Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:20:39 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-1969?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12782203#action_12782203

stack commented on HBASE-1969:

Lars, on the Change class (or Edit or Update, whatever we call it), yes, I think we need something
like this not only for here but also for a combined multi-get/put/delete.  Ryan has also talked
about being able (again) to do Delete and Puts on same row as part of same operation.  We'd
need something like this for that too.

In old designs for hbase-880 (? is this the new API issue?), Delete and Put had same base
class.   Get had different ancestory.

We don't need to do Gets in this context... and maybe in the batch multi case, the multi-Get
could remain a special case; i.e. you would be able to mix Deletes and Puts in a batch but
not Gets?

> HBASE-1626 does not work as advertised due to lack of "instanceof" check in MR framework
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: HBASE-1969
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-1969
>             Project: Hadoop HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 0.20.1
>            Reporter: Lars George
> The issue that HBASE-1626 tried to fix is that we can hand in Put or Delete instances
to the TableOutputFormat. So the explicit Put reference was changed to Writable in the process.
But that does not work as expected:
> {code}09/11/04 13:35:56 INFO mapred.JobClient: Task Id : attempt_200911031030_0004_m_000013_2,
Status : FAILED
> java.io.IOException: Type mismatch in value from map: expected org.apache.hadoop.io.Writable,
recieved org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.Put
>         at org.apache.hadoop.mapred.MapTask$MapOutputBuffer.collect(MapTask.java:812)
>         at org.apache.hadoop.mapred.MapTask$NewOutputCollector.write(MapTask.java:504)
>         at org.apache.hadoop.mapreduce.TaskInputOutputContext.write(TaskInputOutputContext.java:80)
>         at com.worldlingo.hadoop.mapred.RestoreTable$RestoreMapper.map(RestoreTable.java:140)
>         at com.worldlingo.hadoop.mapred.RestoreTable$RestoreMapper.map(RestoreTable.java:69)
>         at org.apache.hadoop.mapreduce.Mapper.run(Mapper.java:144)
>         at org.apache.hadoop.mapred.MapTask.runNewMapper(MapTask.java:583)
>         at org.apache.hadoop.mapred.MapTask.run(MapTask.java:305){code}
> The issue is that the MapReduce framework checks not polymorphic for the type using "instanceof"
but with a direct class comparison. In MapTask.java you find this code
> {code}
>     public synchronized void collect(K key, V value, int partition
>                                      ) throws IOException {
>       reporter.progress();
>       if (key.getClass() != keyClass) {
>         throw new IOException("Type mismatch in key from map: expected "
>                               + keyClass.getName() + ", recieved "
>                               + key.getClass().getName());
>       }
>       if (value.getClass() != valClass) {
>         throw new IOException("Type mismatch in value from map: expected "
>                               + valClass.getName() + ", recieved "
>                               + value.getClass().getName());
>       }
>       ... {code}
> So it does not work using a Writable as the MapOutputValueClass for the job and then
hand in a Put or Delete! The test case TestMapReduce did not pick this up as it has this line
in it
> {code}
>       TableMapReduceUtil.initTableMapperJob(
>         Bytes.toString(table.getTableName()), scan,
>         ProcessContentsMapper.class, ImmutableBytesWritable.class, 
>         Put.class, job);{code}
> which sets the value class to Put
> {code}if (outputValueClass != null) job.setMapOutputValueClass(outputValueClass);{code}
> To fix this (for now) one can set the class to Put the same way or explicitly in their
> {code}job.setMapOutputValueClass(Put.class);{code}
> But the whole idea only seems feasable if a) the Hadoop class is amended to use "instanceof"
instead (lodge Hadoop MapRed JIRA issue?) or b) we have a combined class that represent a
Put *and* a Delete - which seems somewhat wrong, but doable. It would only really find use
in that context and would require the user to make use of it when calling context.write().
This is making things not easier to learn.
> Suggestions?

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

View raw message