Mailing-List: contact dev-help@phoenix.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@phoenix.apache.org
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 20:30:00 +0000 (UTC)
From: "James Taylor (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: dev@phoenix.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.13090645.1501196949000.77741.1501705800245@Atlassian.JIRA>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.13090645.1501196949000@Atlassian.JIRA>
References: <JIRA.13090645.1501196949000@Atlassian.JIRA> <JIRA.13090645.1501196949030@jira-lw-us.apache.org>
Subject: [jira] [Updated] (PHOENIX-4051) Prevent out-of-order updates for
 mutable index updates
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
archived-at: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 20:30:04 -0000


     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-4051?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

James Taylor updated PHOENIX-4051:
----------------------------------
    Attachment: PHOENIX-4051_v3.patch

Can you give this patch a try, [~mujtabachohan]? Let me know if you need an 0.98 version of the patch.

> Prevent out-of-order updates for mutable index updates
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: PHOENIX-4051
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-4051
>             Project: Phoenix
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: James Taylor
>            Assignee: James Taylor
>         Attachments: PHOENIX-4051_v1.patch, PHOENIX-4051_v2.patch, PHOENIX-4051_v3.patch
>
>
> Out-of-order processing of data rows during index maintenance causes mutable indexes to become out of sync with regard to the data table. Here's a simple example to illustrate the issue:
> # Assume table T(K,V) and index X(V,K).
> # Upsert T(A, 1) at t10. Index updates: Put X(1,A) at t10.
> # Upsert T(A, 3) at t30. Index updates: Delete X(1,A) at t29, Put X(3,A) at t30.
> # Upsert T(A,2) at t20. Index updates: Delete X(1,A) at t19, Put X(2,A) at t20, Delete X(2,A) at t29
> Ideally, we'd want to remove the Delete X(1,A) at t29 since this isn't correct in terms of timeline consistency, but we can't do that with HBase without support for deleting/undoing Delete markers. 
> The above is not what is occurring. Instead, when T(A,2) comes in, the Put X(2,A) will occur at t20, but the Delete won't occur. This causes more index rows than data rows, essentially making it invalid.
> A quick fix is to reset the timestamp of the data table mutations to the current time within the preBatchMutate call, when the row is exclusively locked. This skirts the issue because then timestamps won't overlap.


--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)