Mailing-List: contact issues-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 06:47:02 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Anoop Sam John (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: issues@hbase.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.13091782.1501653017000.70637.1501656422615@Atlassian.JIRA>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.13091782.1501653017000@Atlassian.JIRA>
References: <JIRA.13091782.1501653017000@Atlassian.JIRA> <JIRA.13091782.1501653017222@jira-lw-us.apache.org>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-18500) Performance issue: Don't use
 BufferedMutator for HTable's put method
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
archived-at: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 06:47:12 -0000


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-18500?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16110410#comment-16110410 ] 

Anoop Sam John commented on HBASE-18500:
----------------------------------------

This fix is applicable which all branches?  In master we do like what is done in patch now?

> Performance issue: Don't use BufferedMutator for HTable's put method
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-18500
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-18500
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Guanghao Zhang
>            Assignee: Guanghao Zhang
>         Attachments: HBASE-18500-v1.patch
>
>
> Copied the test result from HBASE-17994.
> Run start-hbase.sh in my local computer and use the default config to test with PE tool.
> {code}
> ./bin/hbase org.apache.hadoop.hbase.PerformanceEvaluation --rows=100000 --nomapred --autoFlush=True randomWrite 1
> ./bin/hbase org.apache.hadoop.hbase.PerformanceEvaluation --rows=100000 --nomapred --autoFlush=True asyncRandomWrite 1
> {code}
> Mean latency test result.
> || || Test1 || Test2 || Test3 || Test4 || Test5 ||
> | randomWrite | 164.39 | 161.22 | 164.78 | 140.61 | 151.69 |
> | asyncRandomWrite | 122.29 | 125.58 | 122.23 | 113.18 | 123.02 |
> 50th latency test result.
> || || Test1 || Test2 || Test3 || Test4 || Test5 ||
> | randomWrite | 130.00 | 125.00 | 123.00 | 112.00 | 121.00 |
> | asyncRandomWrite | 95.00 | 97.00 | 95.00 | 88.00 | 95.00 |
> 99th latency test result.
> || || Test1 || Test2 || Test3 || Test4 || Test5 ||
> | randomWrite | 600.00 | 600.00 | 650.00 | 404.00 | 425.00 |
> | asyncRandomWrite | 339.00 | 327.00 | 297.00 | 311.00 | 318.00 |
> In our internal 0.98 branch, the PE test result shows the async write has the almost same latency with the blocking write. But for master branch, the result shows the async write has better latency than the blocking client.  Take a look about the code, I thought the difference is the BufferedMutator. For master branch, HTable don't have a write buffer and all write request will be flushed directly. And user can use BufferedMutator when user want to perform client-side buffering of writes. For the performance issue (autoFlush=True), I thought we can use rpc caller directly in HTable's put method. Thanks.


--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)