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 03:30:25 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2353?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12879649#action_12879649
] 

HBase Review Board commented on HBASE-2353:
-------------------------------------------

Message from: "Kannan Muthukkaruppan" <kannan@facebook.com>

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://review.hbase.org/r/167/#review247
-----------------------------------------------------------


Todd: I know this is already reviewed and committed. I just got around to reviewing this and
the related HBase-2733. Looks really good!!

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.




- Kannan





> 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.


Mime
View raw message