Alex Baranau 2012-10-02, 23:29
This is an interesting observation. I have not thought about HBASE-5229 in terms of a performance improvement.
Currently HRegion.mutateRowsWithLocks actually acquires locks on all rows first (since the contract here is a transaction), so (currently) you would get unnecessarily reduced concurrency using that API for changes that do not need to be atomic.
Also note that a Put(List<Put>) operation already writes multiple updates to a single WALEdit (doing a best effort batching).
From: Alex Baranau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 4:29 PM
Subject: HBase: "small" WAL transactions Q
May be silly question.
Data in WAL is written in small transactions. One transaction is a set of
KeyValues for specific (single) row. As we want each written transaction to
be durable we write them into the WAL one-by-one (ideally with FS sync()
calls, etc. on each write). Which is very costly (doing that for each
Having bigger WAL transactions (writing changes to several "close" records)
should be more efficient (would result in increase of write throughput).
I.e. WALEdit record would contain updates to the multiple different rows.
As far as I understand smth like that was implemented in HBASE-5229 .
But it is not a default behavior when sending multiple records changes to
RS (e.g. when flushing client-side buffer). It also cannot be forced. What
are the major reasons for not using that? Is locking multiple "close" rows
looks so dangerous? Or is it simply not efficient (there's more to that
besides what I described above)?
Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Hadoop - HBase - ElasticSearch - Solr
Alex Baranau 2012-10-03, 02:04
Ted Yu 2012-10-03, 02:11
lars hofhansl 2012-10-03, 03:22