hbase-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lars Hofhansl (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-9969) Improve KeyValueHeap using loser tree
Date Thu, 20 Mar 2014 23:05:46 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9969?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13942476#comment-13942476
] 

Lars Hofhansl commented on HBASE-9969:
--------------------------------------

I take back what I said about this above:
{code}
      KeyValueScanner topScanner = this.heap.peek();
      if (topScanner == null ||
          this.comparator.compare(kvNext, topScanner.peek()) >= 0) {
        this.heap.add(this.current);
        this.current = pollRealKV();
      }
{code}
Looking again, we already have the invariant that the <current> scanner always had a
real seek done it already. So if current is the last/only scanner we can avoid those checks.
Did some more tests (20m rows, 5 cols each, everything in the cache, fully compacted - i.e.
one HFile per store). With the check a scan that filters everything at the server through
all 100m KVs takes 15.1s without it takes 13.3s, so a 12% improvement.
Definitely a change we should make after all, I'll roll this into my experiments on HBASE-10625.


> Improve KeyValueHeap using loser tree
> -------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-9969
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9969
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Performance, regionserver
>            Reporter: Chao Shi
>            Assignee: Chao Shi
>             Fix For: 0.99.0
>
>         Attachments: 9969-0.94.txt, KeyValueHeapBenchmark_v1.ods, KeyValueHeapBenchmark_v2.ods,
hbase-9969-pq-v1.patch, hbase-9969-pq-v2.patch, hbase-9969-v2.patch, hbase-9969-v3.patch,
hbase-9969.patch, hbase-9969.patch, kvheap-benchmark.png, kvheap-benchmark.txt
>
>
> LoserTree is the better data structure than binary heap. It saves half of the comparisons
on each next(), though the time complexity is on O(logN).
> Currently A scan or get will go through two KeyValueHeaps, one is merging KVs read from
multiple HFiles in a single store, the other is merging results from multiple stores. This
patch should improve the both cases whenever CPU is the bottleneck (e.g. scan with filter
over cached blocks, HBASE-9811).
> All of the optimization work is done in KeyValueHeap and does not change its public interfaces.
The new code looks more cleaner and simpler to understand.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Mime
View raw message