hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Clint Morgan" <clint....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Other CC examined in HBase transaction model?
Date Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:26:18 GMT
I implemented the OCC functionality. Went that route because it seemed
relatively straightforward and has acceptable performance for our workloads.
Also I saw something somewhere that made me think that google was using OCC
for transactions in AppEngine.

My intuition is that where the OCC approach really gets into trouble is when
transactions start to frequently conflict (EG, when the "optimistic" hope no
longer holds). Of course, as you increase the life of a transaction, you
increase the probability it will conflict with another.

I don't know enough about timstamp-, or MV-CCs to compare "scalability" to
the OCC approach.

-clint

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Jaeyun Noh <metalain@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I looked at the source codes implemented to support Multi-region
> transaction
> feature. (HBASE-669)
> It uses optimistic concurrency control. Did any guys consider other CC like
> timestamp-based CC or multiversion CC?
>
> I think it's okay in read-dominated and relatively short transaction
> workloads. In other case, is MVCC more scalable rather than OCC?
> What do you think of pros/cons of other concurrency control schemes in
> Hbase
> transactions?
>
> Just I'm curious that hbase transaction uses other CCs or not.
>
> Regards,
> Jaeyun Noh.
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message