Mailing-List: contact dev-help@phoenix.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@phoenix.apache.org
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 03:19:00 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Hadoop QA (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: dev@phoenix.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.13107064.1507151270000.23093.1508296740269@Atlassian.JIRA>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.13107064.1507151270000@Atlassian.JIRA>
References: <JIRA.13107064.1507151270000@Atlassian.JIRA> <JIRA.13107064.1507151270200@jira-lw-us.apache.org>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (PHOENIX-4277) Treat delete markers consistently
 with puts for point-in-time scans
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
archived-at: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 03:19:08 -0000


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-4277?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16208757#comment-16208757 ] 

Hadoop QA commented on PHOENIX-4277:
------------------------------------

{color:red}-1 overall{color}.  Here are the results of testing the latest attachment 
  http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12892721/PHOENIX-4277_v2.patch
  against master branch at commit bab06d688acde9801ae171420f94871b8e78684f.
  ATTACHMENT ID: 12892721

    {color:green}+1 @author{color}.  The patch does not contain any @author tags.

    {color:red}-1 tests included{color}.  The patch doesn't appear to include any new or modified tests.
                        Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch.
                        Also please list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch.

    {color:green}+1 javac{color}.  The applied patch does not increase the total number of javac compiler warnings.

    {color:green}+1 release audit{color}.  The applied patch does not increase the total number of release audit warnings.

    {color:red}-1 lineLengths{color}.  The patch introduces the following lines longer than 100:
    +        return new ScanInfo(scanInfo.getConfiguration(), scanInfo.getFamily(), Math.max(scanInfo.getMinVersions(), 1),
+    public KeyValueScanner preStoreScannerOpen(final ObserverContext<RegionCoprocessorEnvironment> c,
+      if (scan.isRaw() || ScanInfoUtil.isKeepDeletedCells(store.getScanInfo()) || scan.getTimeRange().getMax() == HConstants.LATEST_TIMESTAMP || TransactionUtil.isTransactionalTimestamp(scan.getTimeRange().getMax())) {

     {color:red}-1 core tests{color}.  The patch failed these unit tests:
     ./phoenix-core/target/failsafe-reports/TEST-org.apache.phoenix.end2end.SaltedViewIT
./phoenix-core/target/failsafe-reports/TEST-org.apache.phoenix.end2end.IndexExtendedIT

Test results: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-PHOENIX-Build/1550//testReport/
Console output: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-PHOENIX-Build/1550//console

This message is automatically generated.

> Treat delete markers consistently with puts for point-in-time scans
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: PHOENIX-4277
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-4277
>             Project: Phoenix
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: James Taylor
>            Assignee: Vincent Poon
>         Attachments: PHOENIX-4277_v2.patch, PHOENIX-4277_wip.patch
>
>
> The IndexScrutinyTool relies on doing point-in-time scans to determine consistency between the index and data tables. Unfortunately, deletes to the tables cause a problem with this approach, since delete markers take effect even if they're at a later time stamp than the point-in-time at which the scan is being done (unless KEEP_DELETED_CELLS is true). The logic of this is that scans should get the same results before and after a compaction take place.
> Taking snapshots does not help with this since they cannot be taken at a point-in-time and the delete markers will act the same way - there's no way to guarantee that the index and data table snapshots have the same "logical" set of data.
> Using raw scans would allow us to see the delete markers and do the correct point-in-time filtering ourselves. We'd need to write the filters to do this correctly (see the Tephra TransactionVisibilityFilter for an implementation of this that could be adapted). We'd also need to hook this into Phoenix or potentially dip down to the HBase level  to do this.
> Thanks for brainstorming on this with me, [~lhofhansl].


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