hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Enis Söztutar <e...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Performance between HBaseClient scan and HFileReaderV2
Date Thu, 02 Jan 2014 22:02:00 GMT
Nice test!

There is a couple of things here:

 (1) HFileReader reads only one file, versus, an HRegion reads multiple
files (into the KeyValueHeap) to do a merge scan. So, although there is
only one file, there is some overehead of doing a merge sort'ed read from
multiple files in the region. For a more realistic test, you can try to do
the reads using HRegion directly (instead of HFileReader). The overhead is
not that much though in my tests.
 (2) For scanning with client API, the results have to be serialized and
deserialized and send over the network (or loopback for local). This is
another overhead that is not there in HfileReader.
 (3) HBase scanner RPC implementation is NOT streaming. The RPC works like
fetching batch size (10000) records, and cannot fully saturate the disk and
network pipeline.

In my tests for "MapReduce over snapshot files (HBASE-8369)", I have
measured 5x difference, because of layers (2) and (3). Please see my slides
at http://www.slideshare.net/enissoz/mapreduce-over-snapshots

I think we can do a much better job at (3), see HBASE-8691. However, there
will always be "some" overhead, although it should not be 5-8x.

As suggested above, in the meantime, you can take a look at the patch for
HBASE-8369, and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10076 to see
whether it suits your use case.

Enis


On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Sergey Shelukhin <sergey@hortonworks.com>wrote:

> Er, using MR over snapshots, which reads files directly...
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8369
> However, it was only committed to 98.
> There was interest in 94 port (HBASE-10076), but it never happened...
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Sergey Shelukhin <sergey@hortonworks.com
> >wrote:
>
> > You might be interested in using
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8369
> > However, it was only committed to 98.
> > There was interest in 94 port (HBASE-10076), but it never happened...
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Jerry Lam <chilinglam@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Vladimir,
> >>
> >> In my use case, I guarantee that a major compaction is executed before
> any
> >> scan happens because the system we build is a read only system. There
> will
> >> have no deleted cells. Additionally, I only need to read from a single
> >> column family and therefore I don't need to access multiple HFiles.
> >>
> >> Filter conditions are nice to have because if I can read HFile 8x faster
> >> than using HBaseClient, I can do the filter on the client side and still
> >> perform faster than using HBaseClient.
> >>
> >> Thank you for your input!
> >>
> >> Jerry
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Vladimir Rodionov
> >> <vrodionov@carrieriq.com>wrote:
> >>
> >> > HBase scanner MUST guarantee correct order of KeyValues (coming from
> >> > different HFile's),
> >> > filter condition+ filter condition on included column families and
> >> > qualifiers, time range, max versions and correctly process deleted
> >> cells.
> >> > Direct HFileReader does nothing from the above list.
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> > Vladimir Rodionov
> >> > Principal Platform Engineer
> >> > Carrier IQ, www.carrieriq.com
> >> > e-mail: vrodionov@carrieriq.com
> >> >
> >> > ________________________________________
> >> > From: Jerry Lam [chilinglam@gmail.com]
> >> > Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 7:56 AM
> >> > To: user
> >> > Subject: Re: Performance between HBaseClient scan and HFileReaderV2
> >> >
> >> > Hi Tom,
> >> >
> >> > Good point. Note that I also ran the HBaseClient performance test
> >> several
> >> > times (as you can see from the chart). The caching should also benefit
> >> the
> >> > second time I ran the HBaseClient performance test not just
> benefitting
> >> the
> >> > HFileReaderV2 test.
> >> >
> >> > I still don't understand what makes the HBaseClient performs so poorly
> >> in
> >> > comparison to access directly HDFS. I can understand maybe a factor
> of 2
> >> > (even that it is too much) but a factor of 8 is quite unreasonable.
> >> >
> >> > Any hint?
> >> >
> >> > Jerry
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Tom Hood <tom.w.hood@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I'm also new to HBase and am not familiar with HFileReaderV2.
> >>  However,
> >> > in
> >> > > your description, you didn't mention anything about clearing the
> >> linux OS
> >> > > cache between tests.  That might be why you're seeing the big
> >> difference
> >> > if
> >> > > you ran the HBaseClient test first, it may have warmed the OS cache
> >> and
> >> > > then HFileReaderV2 benefited from it.  Just a guess...
> >> > >
> >> > > -- Tom
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Jerry Lam <chilinglam@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hello HBase users,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I just ran a very simple performance test and would like to see
if
> >> > what I
> >> > > > experienced make sense.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The experiment is as follows:
> >> > > > - I filled a hbase region with 700MB data (each row has roughly
45
> >> > > columns
> >> > > > and the size is 20KB for the entire row)
> >> > > > - I configured the region to hold 4GB (therefore no split occurs)
> >> > > > - I ran compactions after the data is loaded and make sure that
> >> there
> >> > is
> >> > > > only 1 region in the table under test.
> >> > > > - No other table exists in the hbase cluster because this is
a DEV
> >> > > > environment
> >> > > > - I'm using HBase 0.92.1
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The test is very basic. I use HBaseClient to scan the entire
> region
> >> to
> >> > > > retrieve all rows and all columns in the table, just iterating
all
> >> > > KeyValue
> >> > > > pairs until it is done. It took about 1 minute 22 sec to complete.
> >> > (Note
> >> > > > that I disable block cache and uses caching size about 10000).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I ran another test using HFileReaderV2 and scan the entire region
> to
> >> > > > retrieve all rows and all columns, just iterating all keyValue
> pairs
> >> > > until
> >> > > > it is done. It took 11 sec.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The performance difference is dramatic (almost 8 times faster
> using
> >> > > > HFileReaderV2).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I want to know why the difference is so big or I didn't configure
> >> HBase
> >> > > > properly. From this experiment, HDFS can deliver the data
> >> efficiently
> >> > so
> >> > > it
> >> > > > is not the bottleneck.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Any help is appreciated!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Jerry
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Confidentiality Notice:  The information contained in this message,
> >> > including any attachments hereto, may be confidential and is intended
> >> to be
> >> > read only by the individual or entity to whom this message is
> >> addressed. If
> >> > the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
> or
> >> > designee of the intended recipient, please note that any review, use,
> >> > disclosure or distribution of this message or its attachments, in any
> >> form,
> >> > is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this message in error,
> >> please
> >> > immediately notify the sender and/or Notifications@carrieriq.com and
> >> > delete or destroy any copy of this message and its attachments.
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader
> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
> forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately
> and delete it from your system. Thank You.
>

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