hbase-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Todd Lipcon (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (HBASE-2353) HBASE-2283 removed bulk sync optimization for multi-row puts
Date Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:06:27 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2353?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12849016#action_12849016

Todd Lipcon commented on HBASE-2353:

Are you willing to cripple the performance of hbase put speed to
ensure certain log atomic order of operation guarantees in a bulk
insert case?

I think it's crucial that correctness is an _option_. That is to say, I am strongly
against any design that _precludes_ correct operation of bulk puts (where correct
is the set of guarantees we're talking about in HBASE-2294 - visible edits must be
durable, etc). I also am totally with you that for cases like mapreduce bulk loads
there should be a "throw caution to the wind and shove that data in as fast as
our little hard drives can spin" _option_.

> HBASE-2283 removed bulk sync optimization for multi-row puts
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: HBASE-2353
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2353
>             Project: Hadoop HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: ryan rawson
>             Fix For: 0.21.0
>         Attachments: HBASE-2353-deferred.txt
> previously to HBASE-2283 we used to call flush/sync once per put(Put[]) call (ie: batch
of commits).  Now we do for every row.  
> This makes bulk uploads slower if you are using WAL.  Is there an acceptable solution
to achieve both safety and performance by bulk-sync'ing puts?  Or would this not work in face
of atomic guarantees?
> discuss!

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

View raw message