Return-Path: 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 06D341171F for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:22:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 37305 invoked by uid 500); 16 Jun 2014 13:22:54 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-user-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 37242 invoked by uid 500); 16 Jun 2014 13:22:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@hbase.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 37230 invoked by uid 99); 16 Jun 2014 13:22:53 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:22:53 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of yuzhihong@gmail.com designates 209.85.192.179 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.192.179] (HELO mail-pd0-f179.google.com) (209.85.192.179) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:22:49 +0000 Received: by mail-pd0-f179.google.com with SMTP id w10so1800304pde.38 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 06:22:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=pJaJhUY+sqTZ+uvTf7PO9wnZfNb1Um7esjPkbDPsL1w=; b=NBUeBTT357G+lvNt0/K+o96/n6M4XTQxsgzOg/7Ovei8lqEkYWtyepGp3WqZ08Jwe/ 4NPw1bldcQrikfrGRnbJ2tWGc+Z8/erxnJElVelnQxl1R9gekiFI75QBP0VFVomgf/uO zrmaS/l+mqiQJtb/REKc4TMPp+Ft5Lh5Pe/NxAhXSVVe0vra8mIJACCA1kVa9s0isvek Xgu75uXIA/sdUn22IIKWh56Tf+OoOy6eEKsQid5IxnO6nN6aC5hZNrO1qy3yKQys8Yug mCAV3WFcTQ1EmSaORpcdb3OaQdGQc0zjegbr3hIuq3viBXUO5APtBIcDq16KN/06XI59 DgxQ== X-Received: by 10.66.222.100 with SMTP id ql4mr24125500pac.109.1402924944733; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 06:22:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.10] (c-24-130-236-83.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.130.236.83]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id id10sm18817366pbc.35.2014.06.16.06.22.23 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Jun 2014 06:22:23 -0700 (PDT) References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <858705AB-EC59-47ED-BC07-6F0C174EBDF7@gmail.com> Cc: "user@hbase.apache.org" X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10B146) From: Ted Yu Subject: Re: Why Custom Filters are more resource exhaustive then normal single column value filter Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 06:22:23 -0700 To: "user@hbase.apache.org" X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Can you format the table for better reading ? You can put picture on third party website and post link here.=20 Does your custom filter maintain state ? What hbase version are you using ? Have you checked region server logs during the 15 minutes ? Cheers On Jun 16, 2014, at 3:25 AM, Vikram Singh Chandel wrote: > Hi > I was working on way to find a substitute for coprocessor(because of > various issue with them) > so tried Custom Filters and found that the custom filter are much more > resource exhaustive (CPU) then coprocessor having single column value > filter. >=20 > *Query: Get List of Publications for UDANDA (CF:Attributes Col:Country) - > Result: 509 Records. * >=20 > *Heap 3 Gb * >=20 >=20 > With Custom Filter > No of Scan Req > Max Heap(Mb) > Max CPU(%) >=20 >=20 >=20 > 1 > 86.74 > 7.7 > 5 > 412 > 63.37 > 10 > 926 > 99 > *With Single Column Value Filter* > No of Scan Req > Max Heap > Max CPU >=20 >=20 >=20 > 10 > 453.66 > 17.7 > Query ran for 15 minutes didn't get results. Terminated execution >=20 >=20 >=20 > *Can anyone shed some light on this.* > --=20 >=20 > *Regards* >=20 > *VIKRAM SINGH CHANDEL* >=20 > Please do not print this email unless it is absolutely necessary,Reduce. > Reuse. Recycle. Save our planet.