hbase-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "HBase Review Board (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (HBASE-2353) HBASE-2283 removed bulk sync optimization for multi-row puts
Date Thu, 17 Jun 2010 05:29:24 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2353?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12879671#action_12879671

HBase Review Board commented on HBASE-2353:

Message from: stack@duboce.net

bq.  On 2010-06-16 20:24:22, Kannan Muthukkaruppan wrote:
bq.  > Todd: I know this is already reviewed and committed. I just got around to reviewing
this and the related HBase-2733. Looks really good!!
bq.  > 
bq.  > One side effect of this change is that now a single WALEdit could contain data for
more than 1 row. Previously all KVs inside a WALEdit corresponded to the same row. I don't
think it should cause any problems, but thought I should call it out in case others can think
of potential issues.
bq.  > 
bq.  > 
bq.  >

I think its going to be alright Kannan.  The patch over in hbase-1025, the fixup to the replay
of split edits, is applying the kvs it finds in a WALEdit value one at a time.  That they
are for different rows but of the same region, it should be fine I'd say.

- stack

This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:

> HBASE-2283 removed bulk sync optimization for multi-row puts
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: HBASE-2353
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2353
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: ryan rawson
>            Assignee: Todd Lipcon
>            Priority: Blocker
>             Fix For: 0.21.0
>         Attachments: hbase-2353.txt, HBASE-2353_def_log_flush.patch
> 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