hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jesse Yates <jesse.k.ya...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Design review: Secondary index support through coprocess
Date Mon, 20 Jan 2014 22:53:47 GMT
That's easier said than done, when dealing with HBase writes...In Phoenix,
we kind of get around the deadlock issue by separating out the write layer
for indexes to make it queuable and using our own thread pools to make it
somewhat async. It just ends up being hard to ensure consistency when you
don't block on the write being committed :)

I started working on doing a custom RPC handler for index writes, but its
only really doable on 96+... The work for 94 is really invasive; the
solution ends up being "have a lot of handlers" and don't clobber them.

We do get some wins using the "backdoor" writes when the region is on the
same server, but obviously doesn't solve the problem entirely.

-- jesse
On Jan 20, 2014 2:46 PM, "Andrew Purtell" <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:

> Or don't do blocking I/O in the context of the RPC handler thread. Queue
> the work and let the handler return.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:54 PM, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Yep. That's my concern too. Would need to configure a generous number of
> > handlers to prevent this from happening.
> >
> > ________________________________
> >  From: Vladimir Rodionov <vrodionov@carrieriq.com>
> > To: "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>
> > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 11:57 AM
> > Subject: RE: Design review: Secondary index support through coprocess
> >
> > >>Yes, the coprocessors potentially cross RS boundaries.
> >
> > The open path to the disaster. Inter region RPCs in coprocessors may
> > result in periodic cluster - wide deadlocks
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Vladimir Rodionov
> > Principal Platform Engineer
> > Carrier IQ, www.carrieriq.com
> > e-mail: vrodionov@carrieriq.com
> >
> > ________________________________________
> >
> > From: James Taylor [jtaylor@salesforce.com]
> > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 11:39 AM
> > To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Design review: Secondary index support through coprocess
> >
> > Yes, the coprocessors potentially cross RS boundaries. No, the index is
> not
> > co-located with the main table. Take a look at the link I sent as that
> > should be able to answer a lot of questions.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > James
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Michael Segel
> > <michael_segel@hotmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > > James,
> > >
> > > Ok…
> > >
> > > Its been a while since we talked about this…
> > >
> > > While the index is in a separate table, is that table being split and
> > > collocated with the main table?
> > >
> > > If you’re using the coprocessor to maintain the index, that would imply
> > > you’re crossing RS boundaries if your index is truly orthogonal.
> > >
> > > Is this what you’re doing?
> > >
> > > On Jan 20, 2014, at 11:32 AM, James Taylor <jtaylor@salesforce.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Mike,
> > > > Yes, you're mistaken:
> > > > - secondary indexes in Phoenix are orthogonal to the base table.
> > They're
> > > in
> > > > a separate table (
> > > > http://phoenix.incubator.apache.org/secondary_indexing.html).
> > > > - Phoenix has joins. They're in our master branch with a release
> > > scheduled
> > > > for next month
> > > > - numeric strings? Not a use case for indexing numeric data? Have you
> > > ever
> > > > seen a number used as an ID?
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Michael Segel <
> > > michael_segel@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Indexes tend to be orthogonal to the base table, not to mention if
> > > you’re
> > > >> using an inverted table for an index, your index table would be much
> > > >> thinner than your base table.
> > > >>
> > > >> Having said that, the solution proposed by Yu, Taylor and others
> only
> > > >> works if you want to use the index to help on server side filtering
> > and
> > > >> misses the boat on the larger and broader picture of improving query
> > > >> optimization and joins.
> > > >>
> > > >> HINT: Unless I am mistaken… until you treat the index as orthogonal
> to
> > > the
> > > >> base table, you will always lag performance of traditional MPP DWs
> > like
> > > >> Informix XPS. (Now part of IBM’s IM pillar )
> > > >>
> > > >> In addition, until you fix coprocessors in general, you will have
> > > >> scalability and performance issues.
> > > >> (Note that you can write a coprocessor to create a sandbox and
> > separate
> > > >> the co-process from the RS jvm, however it would be better if it
> were
> > > part
> > > >> of the underlying coprocessor code. )
> > > >>
> > > >> The current implementation makes joins worthless.
> > > >> (Note that in prior discussions,  Phoenix doesn’t do joins…)
> > > >> Here’s why:
> > > >> In order to do a join, if you use the proposed index, you have to
> > first
> > > >> reduce each index in to a single, sort ordered set.  Then you can
> take
> > > the
> > > >> intersection of the index result sets.  The final set would be in
> sort
> > > >> order and a subset of the total rows. You can then fetch the rows
> and
> > > still
> > > >> do a server side filter before returning the ultimate result set.
> > > >>
> > > >> Its that first step of reducing each result set in to a single sort
> > > >> ordered set that takes a lot of effort.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On a side note…. there’s been some mention of ordering floats.
> Again,
> > > just
> > > >> a word of caution… there isn’t a really strong use case for indexing
> > > >> numeric data types. period.  And to be very, very clear, there is
a
> > > >> distinction between numeric strings and numeric data types.
> > > >>
> > > >> -Mike
> > > >>
> > > >> PS. Because of my role as a consultant, I am very, very limited in
> > what
> > > I
> > > >> can say and contribute. I don’t own my work product, my clients
do.
> > Take
> > > >> what I say with a grain of salt.  I’m just a skinny little boy from
> > > >> Cleveland Ohio, come to chase your beers and drink your women… ;-)
> > > >>
> > > >> On Jan 9, 2014, at 10:48 AM, James Taylor <jtaylor@salesforce.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> IMHO, it would be valuable if the design considered both a global
> > > >>> indexing solution and a local indexing solution. Both are useful
in
> > > >>> different circumstances. The global indexing design plus the
> > > >>> application integration points could be derived from Jesse's work
> > with
> > > >>> his reference implementation in Phoenix - the global indexing
code
> > has
> > > >>> no Phoenix dependencies and clearly defined integration points.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>> James
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Jan 9, 2014, at 6:36 AM, Jesse Yates <jesse.k.yates@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Yes, that was a big concern I had as well.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> It's not clear how that will work with a large number of indexes;
> if
> > > >> people
> > > >>>> have one index, they will want more than one. To not plan
for that
> > > seems
> > > >>>> like an incomplete implementation to me. In a horizontally
> scalable
> > > >> system
> > > >>>> like HBase, lots of buddy region isn't going to work out well..*
> > Once
> > > we
> > > >>>> have regions that cannot be collocated, the extra RPC time
starts
> to
> > > be
> > > >> the
> > > >>>> biggest factor (as the doc points out) and we are back to
what
> > Phoenix
> > > >> is
> > > >>>> already doing**.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> But I'm probably missing something here in what makes it
> different?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> For folks that haven't been following the issue some high-level
> "how
> > > it
> > > >> all
> > > >>>> kinda works" would be helpful from the championing commiters;
> > that's a
> > > >> long
> > > >>>> doc to get through and grok :). How similar is this to the
work
> > > >> currently
> > > >>>> by the existing indexing implementations (huawei, Phoenix,
> ngdata)?
> > > The
> > > >> doc
> > > >>>> doesn't really nail down the interactions, but instead just
right
> in
> > > >> after
> > > >>>> describing why SI should be added.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Agree this would be super useful, but don't want to waste
too much
> > > work
> > > >>>> reinventing the wheel or doing the wrong thing. further, this
impl
> > > >> quickly
> > > >>>> starts to lead down the query optimization path, which get
HBase
> > away
> > > >> from
> > > >>>> its core "be a great byte store".
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Like I said, I'm all for secondary indexes in HBase and think
this
> > is
> > > a
> > > >>>> great push. I don't mean to rain on any parades.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> - jesse
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> * but a smart way to specify region collocation? That I can
get
> > behind
> > > >> as
> > > >>>> it would unify a couple different indexing impls (e.g Phoenix
> would
> > > >>>> consider using it to help make indexing faster - RPCs do suck).
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ** for instance, the doc talks about how to implement indexing
for
> > > >>>> floats... That might be a default impl, but for use cases
like
> > Phoenix
> > > >> this
> > > >>>> would break all our current encodings. We handled this is
the
> > indexing
> > > >> impl
> > > >>>> by making the builder pluggable for different use cases to
support
> > > >>>> different encodings. I feel like a lot of the code for this
kind
> of
> > SI
> > > >>>> impl is already in Phoenix and has been working and fast for
> several
> > > >> months
> > > >>>> now; it's surprisingly tricky, especially with the delete
cases
> and
> > > time
> > > >>>> stamp manipulation issues.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Thursday, January 9, 2014, Sudarshan Kadambi (BLOOMBERG/
731
> > LEXIN)
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Could you explain how the 1-1 association between user
and index
> > > table
> > > >>>>> regions is maintained. I wasn't able to understand fully
from the
> > > >> document.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> > > >>>>> From: Ted Yu <dev@hbase.apache.org>
> > > >>>>> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> > > >>>>> At: Jan 8, 2014 3:41:40 PM
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Hi,
> > > >>>>> Secondary index support is a frequently requested feature.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Please find the updated design doc here:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12621909/SecondaryIndex%20Design_Updated_2.pdf
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> HBASE-9203 is the umbrella JIRA.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Implementation patch was attached to HBASE-10222
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks to Rajesh who works on this feature.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Cheers
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> --
> > > >>>> -------------------
> > > >>>> Jesse Yates
> > > >>>> @jesse_yates
> > > >>>> jyates.github.com
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Confidentiality Notice:  The information contained in this message,
> > including any attachments hereto, may be confidential and is intended to
> be
> > read only by the individual or entity to whom this message is addressed.
> If
> > the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent or
> > designee of the intended recipient, please note that any review, use,
> > disclosure or distribution of this message or its attachments, in any
> form,
> > is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this message in error,
> please
> > immediately notify the sender and/or Notifications@carrieriq.com and
> > delete or destroy any copy of this message and its attachments.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>    - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message