Mailing-List: contact dev-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of mcsrivas@gmail.com designates
 209.85.214.169 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1326823659.36452.YahooMailNeo@web121702.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <1326684100.80142.YahooMailNeo@web121706.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<CANhO-s1pXDn4Vhb+0NhpXcvr4Q+jap-DM=ODrvx+ifNicQ9Esg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1326823659.36452.YahooMailNeo@web121702.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:14:04 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CANhO-s0A-UcG+w1X0dsfwHdi+EHwqyRUWsXFmfO07b58mgvWZw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Delete client API.
From: "M. C. Srivas" <mcsrivas@gmail.com>
To: lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com>
Cc: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0444ee5527529004b6c0a6b4

--f46d0444ee5527529004b6c0a6b4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:07 AM, lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Yeah, it's confusing if one expects it to work like in a relational
> database.
> You can even do worse. If you by accident place a delete in the future all
> current inserts will be hidden until the next major compaction. :)
> I got confused about this myself just recently (see my mail on the
> dev-list).
>
>
> In the end this is a pretty powerful feature and core to how HBase works
> (not saying that is not confusing though).
>
>
> If one keeps the following two points in mind it makes more sense:
> 1. Delete just sets a tomb stone marker at a specific TS (marking
> everything older as deleted).
> 2. Everything is versioned, if no version is specified the current time
> (at the regionserver) is used.
>
> In your example1 below t3 > 6, hence the insert is hidden.
> In example2 both delete and insert TS are 6, hence the insert is hidden.
>

Lets consider my example2 for a little longer. Sequence of events

   1.  ins  val1  with TS=6 set by client
   2.  del  entire row at TS=6 set by client
   3.  ins  val2  with TS=6  set by client
   4.  read row

The row returns nothing even though the insert at step 3 happened after the
delete at step 2. (step 2 masks even future inserts)

Now, the same sequence with a compaction thrown in the middle:

   1.  ins  val1  with TS=6 set by client
   2.  del  entire row at TS=6 set by client
   3.  ---- table is compacted -----
   4.  ins  val2  with TS=6  set by client
   5.  read row

The row returns val2.  (the delete at step2 got lost due to compaction).

So we have different results depending upon whether an internal
re-organization (like a compaction) happened or not. If we want both
sequences to behave exactly the same, then we need to first choose what is
the proper (and deterministic) behavior.

A.  if we think that the first sequence is the correct one, then the delete
at step 2 needs to be preserved forever.

or,

B. if we think that the second sequence is the correct behavior (ie, a read
always produces the same results independent of compaction), then the
record needs a second "internal TS" field to allow the RS to distinguish
the real sequence of events, and not rely upon the TS field which is
settable by the client.

My opinion:

We should do B.  It is normal for someone to write code that says  "if old
exists, delete it;  add new". A subsequent read should always reliably
return "new".

The current way of relying on a client-settable TS field to determine
causal order results in quirky behavior, and quirky is not good.


> Look at these two examples:
>
> 1. insert Val1  at real time t1
> 2. <del>  at real time t2 > t1
> 3. insert  Val2 at real time  t3 > t2
>
> 1. insert Val1  with TS=1 at real time t1
> 2. <del>  with TS = 2 at real time t2 > t1
>
> 3. insert  Val2 with TS = 3 at real time  t3 > t2
>
>
> In both cases Val2 is visible.
>
> If the your code sets your own timestamps, you better know what you're
> doing :)
>
> Note that my examples below are confusing even if you know how deletion in
> HBase works.
> You have to look at Delete.java to figure out what is happening.
> OK, since there were know objections in two days, I will commit my
> proposed change in HBASE-5205.
>
>
> -- Lars
>
> ________________________________
> From: M. C. Srivas <mcsrivas@gmail.com>
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org; lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 8:13 AM
> Subject: Re: Delete client API.
>
>
> Delete seems to be confusing in general. Here are some examples that make
> me scratch my head (key is same in all the examples):
>
> Example1:
> ----------------
> 1. insert Val3  with TS=3  at real time t1
> 2. insert Val5  with TS=5  at real time t2 > t1
> 3. <del>    at real time t3 > t2
> 4. insert  Val6  with TS=6  at real time  t4 > t3
>
> What does a read return?  (I would expect  Val6, since it was done last).
> But depending upon whether compaction happened or not between steps 3 and
> 4, I get either Val6 or  nothing.
>
> Example 2:
> -----------------
> 1. insert Val3  with TS=3  at real time t1
> 2. insert Val5  with TS=5  at real time t2 > t1
> 3. <del>  TS=6  at real time t3 > t2
> 4. insert  Val6  with TS=6  at real time  t4 > t3
>
> Note the difference in step 3 is this time a TS was specified by the
> client.
>
> What does a read return?  Again, I expect Val6 to be returned. But
> depending upon what's going on, I seem to get either Val5 or Val6.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 7:21 PM, lars hofhansl <lhofhansl@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> There are some confusing parts about the Delete client API:
> >1. calling deleteFamily removes all prior column or columns markers
> without checking the TS.
> >2. delete{Column|Columns|Family} do not use the timestamp passed to
> Delete at construction time, but instead default to LATEST_TIMESTAMP.
> >
> >  Delete d = new Delete(R,T);
> >  d.deleteFamily(CF);
> >
> >Does not do what you expect (won't use T for the family delete, but
> rather the current time).
> >
> >Neither does
> >  d.deleteColumns(CF, C1, T2);
> >  d.deleteFamily(CF, T1); // T1 < T2
> >
> >
> >(the columns marker will be removed)
> >
> >
> >#1 prevents Delete from adding a family marker F for time T1 and a
> column/columns marker for columns of F at T2 even if T2 > T1.
> >#2 is just unexpected and different from what Put is doing.
> >
> >In HBASE-5205 I propose a simple patch to fix this.
> >
> >Since this is a (slight) API change, please provide feed back.
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >-- Lars
> >
> >
>

--f46d0444ee5527529004b6c0a6b4--