Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Accumulo >> mail # user >> Filter storing state


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Filter storing state
Are you testing this in scan time or via actual minor/major compactions? I
know at scan time, there is no guarantee that the iterator remains intact
through the entire scan, and it instead may be reconstructed, causing state
to be lost. I don't think this is the case for compaction time iterators,
but I'm not positive.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Corey Nolet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hey Guys,
>
> In "Accumulo 1.3.5", I wrote a "Top N" table structure, services and a
> FilteringIterator that would allow us to drop in several keys/values
> associated with a UUID (similar to a document id). The UUID was further
> associated with an "index" (or type). The purpose of the TopN table was to
> keep the keys/values separated so that they could still be queried back
> with cell-level tagging, but when I performed a query for an index, I would
> get the last N UUIDs and further be able to query the keys/values for each
> of those UUIDs.
>
> This problem seemed simple to solve in Accumulo 1.3.5, as I was able to
> provide 2 FilteringIterators for compaction time to perform data cleanup of
> the table so that any keys/values kept around were guaranteed to be inside
> of the range of those keys being managed by the versioning iterator.
>
> Just to recap, I have the following table structure. I also hash the
> keys/values and run a filter before the versioning iterator to clean up any
> duplicates. There are two types of columns: index & key/value.
>
>
> Index:
>
> R: index (or "type" of data)
> F: '\x00index'
> Q: empty
> V: uuid\x00hashOfKeys&Values
>
>
> Key/Value:
>
> R: index (or "type" of data)
> F: uuid
> Q: key\x00value
> V: empty
>
>
> The filtering iterator that makes sure any key/value rows are in the index
> manages a hashset internally. The index rows are purposefully indexed
> before the key/value rows so that the filter can build up the hashset
> containing those uuids in the index. As the filter iterates into the
> key/value rows, it will return true only if the uuid of the key/value
> exists inside of the hashset containing the uuids in the index. This worked
> with older versions of accumulo but I'm now getting a weird artifact where
> INIT() is called on my Filter in the middle of iterating through an index
> row.
>
> More specifically, the Filter will iterate through the index rows of a
> specific "index" and build up a hashset, then init() will be called which
> wipes away the hashset of uuids, then the further goes on to iterate
> through the key/value rows. Keep in mind, we are talking about maybe 400k
> entries, not enough to have more than 1 tablet.
>
> Any idea why this may have worked on 1.3.5 but doesn't work any longer? I
> know it has got to be a huge nono to be storing state inside of a filter,
> but I haven't had any issues until trying to update my code for the new
> version. If I'm doing this completely wrong, any ideas on how to make this
> better?
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> --
> Corey Nolet
> Senior Software Engineer
> TexelTek, inc.
> [Office] 301.880.7123
> [Cell] 410-903-2110
>
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB