Return-Path: 
 <user-return-34586-apmail-hbase-user-archive=hbase.apache.org@hbase.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 05A45E248
	for <apmail-hbase-user-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Wed,  6 Mar 2013 05:25:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 2685 invoked by uid 500); 6 Mar 2013 05:25:05 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@hbase.apache.org
Received: (qmail 2466 invoked by uid 500); 6 Mar 2013 05:25:04 -0000
Mailing-List: contact user-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:user-help@hbase.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:user-unsubscribe@hbase.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:user@hbase.apache.org>
List-Id: <user.hbase.apache.org>
Reply-To: user@hbase.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list user@hbase.apache.org
Received: (qmail 2457 invoked by uid 99); 6 Mar 2013 05:25:04 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 05:25:04 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0
	tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of kiran.sarvabhotla@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.82.44 as permitted sender)
Received: from [74.125.82.44] (HELO mail-wg0-f44.google.com) (74.125.82.44)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 05:24:58 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id dr12so6925025wgb.35
        for <user@hbase.apache.org>; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 21:24:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id
         :subject:from:to:content-type;
        bh=kVniCM1IoxZfUVPZJ7kFcux7PCuZInKsUtbO7P+CKR4=;
        b=Pj/gZhfh2Dmxtb192AecLIv8G/5Aal2GHZA9lPStfCkNWHgC1oDDUoOfCz1jGNcZJY
         kTnHgk8qo45gacl+/6DV++e+I36fc8R13aAzkzZs/MID0zqu+6hT9k5ORxMlp+0+vdAR
         OQiJGUeRDjEZspHJLfNv6+lwXOgF4fw9/1SkEdG+TpYOPB2+7sTTyu0ssVHevPdvwXVv
         +tfqLv4fF6js/aYusM687WmCWOkLwcNR6OwKU1H7QCKOm2yuxqCrQq3SqmgDI+G47Rhm
         pIl5MTVdEWdRTuA+MRi5j4URAFmJwIlG96bWcOav5yL39fy7Vb4vxksYstu8sTWiG24Y
         gzmw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.181.11.164 with SMTP id ej4mr23580759wid.29.1362547477670;
 Tue, 05 Mar 2013 21:24:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.176.234 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 21:24:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1362546824.66271.YahooMailNeo@web140602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: 
 <CAMBJfVnO38-6iDMTyB1j8OfU_1QwydCWQqm9Yx4+VhZ9GZRbzg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALte62zADYDS9iHHRrSKQWd-83bnY697Bg+cx4setKELfjfYew@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMBJfVkfy7gf9A_3kfdidK910ZQkB0cEHT1J+F0pYkXs_OD3HQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1362546824.66271.YahooMailNeo@web140602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:54:37 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAMBJfVkRcx63Qb2WSux5MNbsE_+U09bCSeeem0AKhqac6aCw8A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Miserable Performance of gets
From: kiran <kiran.sarvabhotla@gmail.com>
To: user@hbase.apache.org, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0438914b65779604d73ace7b
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

--f46d0438914b65779604d73ace7b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Lars,

The hbase block size we set to 20GB....

Anoop,

We have about 13 regionservers and in the worst case these gets may be
distributed across all the regionservers...



On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:43 AM, lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org> wrote:

> Can you tell us more about your setup?
> What does   describe '<your-table>'   in the shell display?
>
> If I had to make a wild guess I'd say you made the HBase block size (not
> the HDFS block size) too big.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> -- Lars
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: kiran <kiran.sarvabhotla@gmail.com>
> To: user@hbase.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 9:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Miserable Performance of gets
>
> Version is 0.94.1
>
> Yes, the gets are issued against the second table scanning the first table
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Which HBase version are you using ?
> >
> > bq. But even for 20 gets
> > These were issued against the second table ?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:36 PM, kiran <kiran.sarvabhotla@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear All,
> > >
> > > I had some miserable experience with gets (batch gets) in hbase. I have
> > two
> > > tables with different rowkeys, columns are distributed across the two
> > > tables.
> > >
> > > Currently what I am doing is scan over one table and get all the
> rowkeys
> > in
> > > the first table matching my filter. Then issue a batch get on another
> > table
> > > to retrieve some columns. But even for 20 gets, the performance is like
> > > miserable (almost a second or two for 20 gets which is not acceptable).
> > > But, scanning even on few thousands of rows is getting completed in
> > > milliseconds.
> > >
> > > My concern is for about 20 gets if it takes second or two,
> > > How can it scale ??
> > > Will the performance be the same even if I issue 1000 gets ??
> > > Is it advisable in hbase to avoid gets ??
> > >
> > > I can include all columns in only one table and do a scan also, but
> > before
> > > doing that I need to really understand the issue...
> > >
> > > Is scanning a better solution for scalability and performance ???
> > >
> > > Is it advisable not to do joins or normalizations in NOSQL databases,
> > > include all the data in only table and not do joins with another table
> ??
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thank you
> > > Kiran Sarvabhotla
> > >
> > > -----Even a correct decision is wrong when it is taken late
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thank you
> Kiran Sarvabhotla
>
> -----Even a correct decision is wrong when it is taken late
>



-- 
Thank you
Kiran Sarvabhotla

-----Even a correct decision is wrong when it is taken late

--f46d0438914b65779604d73ace7b--