phoenix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Taylor (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (PHOENIX-2591) Minimize transaction commit/rollback for DDL
Date Tue, 19 Jan 2016 05:09:39 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-2591?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

James Taylor updated PHOENIX-2591:
----------------------------------
    Attachment: PHOENIX-2591.patch

Please review, [~tdsilva]. We can use the write pointer and not have to do the funky commit
stuff as long as we use tx.getTransactionId() which doesn't change (it's the initial write
pointer).

> Minimize transaction commit/rollback for DDL
> --------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: PHOENIX-2591
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-2591
>             Project: Phoenix
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: James Taylor
>            Assignee: Thomas D'Silva
>             Fix For: 4.7.0
>
>         Attachments: PHOENIX-2591.patch
>
>
> Seems that the number of times we commit/rollback transactions during DDL operations
could be improved. See TransactionUtil.getTableTimestamp() for example. There'd also be another
couple when MutationState.commitWriteFence() is called when a CREATE INDEX is performed too.
> I realize we're doing this to get the transaction read pointer to "catch up" to the current
time, as we use the read pointer as our "current time" for transactional tables. However,
 what would the impact be if we used the transaction write pointer instead? 
> At a minimum, we need to document what we're doing before we forget.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message