orc-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Owen O'Malley" <omal...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Bloom filter hash broken
Date Thu, 08 Sep 2016 22:42:57 GMT
   That is a great point. I wasn't thinking about having to implement that
in C++, where it would really suck. (It was hard enough dealing with the
timezones in C++, so I should know better!) I got the approach from this
morning working and pushed it as a branch

  The heaviest hammer would be to just create a new file version, but that
seems like overkill for this. (Although sooner or later we will get there,
since we need new encodings for decimal.)

  Ok, so how about:

1. We create a new stream kind (BLOOM_FILTER_UTF8) that always has UTF-8
based bloom filters. It will be used for strings, chars, varchars, and
decimal. (Hopefully all charsets use the same bytes for ascii characters,
but I don't want to find the strange exceptions.)

2. We create a new config knob that let's you write both BLOOM_FILTER and
BLOOM_FILTER_UTF8 for users while they are transitioning.

3. The reader prefers BLOOM_FILTER_UTF8, but will fall back to BLOOM_FILTER
if it is an old file.


.. Owen

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com> wrote:

> > On Sep 8, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Owen O'Malley <omalley@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Ok, Prasanth found a problem with my proposed approach. In particular,
> the
> > old readers would misinterpret bloom filters from new files. Therefore,
> I'd
> > like to propose a more complicated solution:
> > 1. We extend the stripe footer or bloom filter index to record the
> default
> > encoding when we are writing a string or decimal bloom filter.
> > 2. When reading a bloom filter, we use the encoding if it is present.
> Does that mean that you always write with he platform encoding?  This
> would make using bloom filters for read in other programming languages
> difficult because you would need to do a UTF_8 to some arbitrary character
> encoding.  This will also make using these bloom filters in performance
> critical sections (join loops) computationally expensive as you have to do
> a transcode.
> Also, I think the spec need to be clarified.  The spec does not state the
> character encoding of the bloom filters.  I assumed it was UTF_8 to match
> the normal string column encoding.  It looks like the spec does not
> document the meaning of "the version of the writer” and what workarounds
> are necessary (or operating assumptions have been made).  Once we have
> that, we should document that old readers assume that the platform default
> charset is consistent for readers and writers.
> As and alternative, for new files we could add add a new stream ID, so the
> old readers skip them.
> -dain

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