hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Segel <michael_se...@hotmail.com>
Subject Re: performance of Get from MR Job
Date Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:33:33 GMT
I think the version issue is the killer factor here. 

Usually performing a simple get() where you are getting the latest version of the data on
the row/cell occurs in some constant time k. This is constant regardless of the size of the
cluster and should scale in a near linear curve.  

As JD C points out, if your storing temporal data, you should make time part of your schema.


On Jun 20, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans wrote:

> Yeah I've overlooked the versions issue.
> 
> What I usually recommend is that if the timestamp is part of your data
> model, it should be in the row key, a qualifier or a value. Since you
> seem to rely on the timestamp for querying, it should definitely be
> part of the row key but not at the beginning like you proposed. See
> http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#rowkey.design
> 
> J-D
> 
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Marcin Cylke <mcl.hbase@touk.pl> wrote:
>> On 19/06/12 19:31, Jean-Daniel Cryans wrote:
>>> This is a common but hard problem. I do not have a good answer.
>> 
>> Thanks for Your writeup. You've given a few suggestions, that I will
>> surely follow.
>> 
>> But what is bothering me, is my use of timestamps. As mentioned before,
>> my column family has 2147483646 versions allowed. I store data there
>> using those timestamps - a few rows with the same key but different
>> timestamp. Preparing GETs with timestamp, for TimeRange {0, Timestamp}
>> my performance is slopy (~130/sec). But setting doing sth like
>> {timestamp-10000, timestamp} results in great speed improvement (~400/sec).
>> 
>> Despite the {timestamp-10000, timestamp} being unrealistic in my
>> situation, the whole issue seems strange, and thus related in some way
>> to the use of timestamps.
>> 
>> Would You recommend trying with complex keys - build of timestamp+my
>> current key? Or this shouldn't change that much?
>> 
>> 
>>> Finally kind of like Paul said, if you can emit your rows and somehow
>>> batch them reducer-side in order to either do short scans or multi-get
>>> (see HTable.get(List<Get>)) it could be faster.
>> 
>> I'll try this solution, but I'm not that optimistic about it. I'll let
>> You know whether this helped or not.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Marcin
>> 
> 


Mime
View raw message