hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kiru Pakkirisamy <kirupakkiris...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Client Get vs Coprocessor scan performance
Date Sun, 18 Aug 2013 19:16:26 GMT
James,
I am using the FuzzyRowFilter or the Gets within  a Coprocessor. Looks like I cannot use
your SkipScanFilter by itself as it has lots of phoenix imports. I thought of writing my own
Custom filter and saw that the FuzzyRowFilter in the 0.94 branch also had an implementation
for getNextKeyHint(),  only that it works well only with fixed length keys if I wanted a
complete match of the keys. After my padding my keys to fixed length it seems to be fine.
Once I confirm some key locality and other issues (like heap), I will try to bench mark this
table alone against Phoenix on another cluster. Thanks.
 
Regards,
- kiru


Kiru Pakkirisamy | webcloudtech.wordpress.com


________________________________
 From: James Taylor <jtaylor@salesforce.com>
To: "user@hbase.apache.org" <user@hbase.apache.org> 
Cc: Kiru Pakkirisamy <kirupakkirisamy@yahoo.com> 
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: Client Get vs Coprocessor scan performance
 

Would be interesting to compare against Phoenix's Skip Scan
(http://phoenix-hbase.blogspot.com/2013/05/demystifying-skip-scan-in-phoenix.html)
which does a scan through a coprocessor and is more than 2x faster
than multi Get (plus handles multi-range scans in addition to point
gets).

James

On Aug 18, 2013, at 6:39 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:

> bq. Get'ting 100 rows seems to be faster than the FuzzyRowFilter (mask on
> the whole length of the key)
>
> In this case the Get's are very selective. The number of rows FuzzyRowFilter
> was evaluated against would be much higher.
> It would be nice if you remember the time each took.
>
> bq. Also, I am seeing very bad concurrent query performance
>
> Were the multi Get's performed by your coprocessor within region boundary
> of the respective coprocessor ? Just to confirm.
>
> bq. that would make Coprocessors almost single threaded across multiple
> invocations ?
>
> Let me dig into code some more.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy <
> kirupakkirisamy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Ted,
>> On a table with 600K rows, Get'ting 100 rows seems to be faster than the
>> FuzzyRowFilter (mask on the whole length of the key). I thought the
>> FuzzyRowFilter's  SEEK_NEXT_USING_HINT would help.  All this on the client
>> side, I have not changed my CoProcessor to use the FuzzyRowFilter based on
>> the client side performance (still doing multiple get inside the
>> coprocessor). Also, I am seeing very bad concurrent query performance. Are
>> there any thing that would make Coprocessors almost single threaded across
>> multiple invocations ?
>> Again, all this after putting in 0.94.10 (for hbase-6870 sake) which seems
>> to be very good in bringing up the regions online fast and balanced. Thanks
>> and much appreciated.
>>
>> Regards,
>> - kiru
>>
>>
>> Kiru Pakkirisamy | webcloudtech.wordpress.com
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
>> To: "user@hbase.apache.org" <user@hbase.apache.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 4:19 PM
>> Subject: Re: Client Get vs Coprocessor scan performance
>>
>>
>> HBASE-6870 targeted whole table scanning for each coprocessorService call
>> which exhibited itself through:
>>
>> HTable#coprocessorService -> getStartKeysInRange -> getStartEndKeys ->
>> getRegionLocations -> MetaScanner.allTableRegions(getConfiguration(),
>> getTableName(), false)
>>
>> The cached region locations in HConnectionImplementation would be used.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Asaf Mesika <asaf.mesika@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ted, can you elaborate a little bit why this issue boosts performance?
>>> I couldn't figure out from the issue comments if they execCoprocessor
>> scans
>>> the entire .META. table or and entire table, to understand the actual
>>> improvement.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think you need HBASE-6870 which went into 0.94.8
>>>>
>>>> Upgrading should boost coprocessor performance.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 8, 2013, at 10:21 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy <
>> kirupakkirisamy@yahoo.com
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ted,
>>>>> Here is the method signature/protocol
>>>>> public Map<String, Double> getFooMap<String, Double> input,
>>>>> int topN) throws IOException;
>>>>>
>>>>> There are 31 regions on 4 nodes X 8 CPU.
>>>>> I am on 0.94.6 (from Hortonworks).
>>>>> I think it seems to behave like what linwukang says, - it is almost a
>>>> full table scan in the coprocessor.
>>>>> Actually, when I set more specific ColumnPrefixFilters performance
>> went
>>>> down.
>>>>> I want to do things on the server side because, I dont want to be
>>>> sending 500K column/values to the client.
>>>>> I cannot believe a single-threaded client which does some
>> calculations
>>>> and group-by  beats the coprocessor running in 31 regions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> - kiru
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kiru Pakkirisamy | webcloudtech.wordpress.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
>>>>> To: user@hbase.apache.org; Kiru Pakkirisamy <
>> kirupakkirisamy@yahoo.com
>>>>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2013 8:40 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Client Get vs Coprocessor scan performance
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you give us a bit more information ?
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you deliver the 55 rowkeys to your endpoint ?
>>>>> How many regions do you have for this table ?
>>>>>
>>>>> What HBase version are you using ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Kiru Pakkirisamy
>>>>> <kirupakkirisamy@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> I am finding an odd behavior with the Coprocessor performance
>> lagging
>>> a
>>>>>> client side Get.
>>>>>> I have a table with 500000 rows. Each have variable # of columns
in
>>> one
>>>>>> column family (in this case about 600000 columns in total are
>>> processed)
>>>>>> When I try to get specific 55 rows, the client side completes in
>>>> half-the
>>>>>> time as the coprocessor endpoint.
>>>>>> I am using  55 RowFilters on the Coprocessor scan side. The rows
are
>>>>>> processed are exactly the same way in both the cases.
>>>>>> Any pointers on how to debug this scenario ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> - kiru
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kiru Pakkirisamy | webcloudtech.wordpress.com
>>>>
>>>
>>
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message