tephra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andreas Neumann <a...@apache.org>
Subject Re: TransactionCodec poor performance
Date Tue, 06 Jun 2017 18:49:19 GMT
Hi Micael,

if your transaction objects are that large, that indicates that you have a
lot of either invalid or in-progress transactions. I am wondering how that
happens. Can you share your code?

Also, are you subscribed to this list? It would be good to do so in order
to receive the responses, they normally only go to the list.

Cheers -Andreas.

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:29 AM, Terence Yim <chtyim@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Micael,
>
> Do you know if the invalid tx list inside the Transaction object is large?
>
> Terence
>
> > On May 31, 2017, at 1:49 AM, Micael Capitão <micael.capitao@xpand-it.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've been testing Tephra 0.11.0 for a project that may need transactions
> on top of HBase and I find it's performance, for instance, for a bulk load,
> very poor. Let's not discuss why am I doing a bulk load with transactions.
> >
> > In my use case I am generating batches of ~10000 elements and inserting
> them with the *put(List<Put> puts)* method. There is no concurrent writers
> or readers.
> > If I do the put without transactions it takes ~0.5s. If I use the
> *TransactionAwareHTable* it takes ~12s.
> > I've tracked down the performance killer to be the *addToOperation(OperationWithAttributes
> op, Transaction tx)*, more specifically the *txCodec.encode(tx)*.
> >
> > I've created a TransactionAwareHTableFix with the *addToOperation(txPut,
> tx)* commented, and used it in my code, and each batch started to take
> ~0.5s.
> >
> > I've noticed that inside the *TransactionCodec* you were instantiating a
> new TSerializer and TDeserializer on each call to encode/decode. I tried
> instantiating the ser/deser on the constructor but even that way each of my
> batches would take the same ~12s.
> >
> > Further investigation has shown me that the Transaction instance, after
> being encoded by the TransactionCodec, has 104171 bytes of length. So in my
> 10000 elements batch, ~970MB is metadata. Is that supposed to happen?
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Micael Capitão
>
>

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