hbase-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Allan Yang (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (HBASE-17924) Consider sorting the row order when processing multi() ops before taking rowlocks
Date Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:43:04 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17924?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Allan Yang updated HBASE-17924:
-------------------------------
    Attachment: HBASE-17924.v2.patch

Updated a new patch. In this patch, I sorted ClientProtos.Action instead of Mutation. Since
we need to remain the mapping relationship between  ClientProtos.Action and mutation.
But the problem of sorting ClientProtos.Action is that we can't use Bytes.CompareTo. I have
to implement a comparator with less efficiency. If anyone have better way, please let me know.
 

> Consider sorting the row order when processing multi() ops before taking rowlocks
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-17924
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17924
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>    Affects Versions: 2.0.0, 1.1.8
>            Reporter: Andrew Purtell
>            Assignee: Allan Yang
>             Fix For: 2.0.0
>
>         Attachments: HBASE-17924.patch, HBASE-17924.v0.patch, HBASE-17924.v2.patch
>
>
> When processing a batch mutation, we take row locks in whatever order the mutations were
added to the multi op by the client.
>  
> {noformat}
> RSRpcServices#multi -> RSRpcServices#mutateRows -> HRegion#mutateRow -> HRegion#mutateRowsWithLocks
-> HRegion#processRowsWithLocks
> {noformat}
> Or
> {noformat}
> RSRpcServices#multi -> RSRpcServices#doNonAtomicRegionMutation ->
>       HRegion#get 
>     | HRegion#append 
>     | HRegion#increment 
>     | HRegionServer#doBatchOp -> HRegion#batchMutate -> HRegion#doMiniBatchMutation
> {noformat}
>  
> multi() is fed by client APIs that accept a RowMutations object containing actions for
multiple rows. The container for ops inside RowMutations is an ArrayList, which doesn't change
the ordering of objects added to it. The protobuf implementation of the messages for multi
ops do not reorder the list of actions. When processing multi ops we iterate over the actions
in the order rehydrated from protobuf.
> We should discuss sorting the order of ops by row key when processing multi() ops before
taking row locks. Does this make lock ordering more predictable for server side operations?
Yes, but potentially surprising for the client, right? Is there any legitimate reason we should
take locks out of row key sorted order because the client has structured the request as such?



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)

Mime
View raw message