hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Taylor <jtay...@salesforce.com>
Subject Re: Design review: Secondary index support through coprocess
Date Wed, 22 Jan 2014 19:00:29 GMT
FYI, the Phoenix mutable secondary indexing implementation won't make
cyclical RPC calls like this. We do a single batched mutation from the RS
of the data table to the RS of the index table to do the index maintenance.
But the situation Jesse described is possible, though we have not
encountered this in our testing. As Jesse mentioned, the fix is to
have a custom
RPC handler for index writes that has a higher priority than the other ones.

Thanks,
James


On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Vladimir Rodionov
<vrodionov@carrieriq.com>wrote:

> Deadlocks are possible because  cross region RPCs create cyclic
> dependencies in HBase cluster.
>
> RS1-> RS2->RS3->RS1, where -> is PRC call
>
> now imagine that last call from RS3 to RS1 is blocked because there no
> more available handler threads to process it.
>
> Best regards,
> Vladimir Rodionov
> Principal Platform Engineer
> Carrier IQ, www.carrieriq.com
> e-mail: vrodionov@carrieriq.com
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Wei Tan [wtan@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 7:51 AM
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Design review: Secondary index support through coprocess
>
> Why cross-RS RPC is going to cause deadlocks? It is a matter of logic
> incorrectness, or resource outage? Say, if we set the #handler to be
> large, logically deadlock still occurs?
> Best regards,
> Wei
>
>
>
>
> From:   Vladimir Rodionov <vrodionov@carrieriq.com>
> To:     "dev@hbase.apache.org" <dev@hbase.apache.org>,
> Date:   01/20/2014 03:00 PM
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>

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