Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Accumulo >> mail # user >> Performance of table with large number of column families

Copy link to this message
Re: Performance of table with large number of column families
The bloom filter checks only occur on a seek, and the way the column family
filter works it's it seeks and then does a few scans to see if the
appropriate families pop up in the short term. Bloom filter on the column
family would be better if you had larger rows to encourage more
seeks/minimize the number of rows to do bloom checks.

The issue is that you are ultimately checking every single row for a
column, which is sparse. It's not that different than doing a full table
regex. If you had locality groups set up it would be more performant, until
you create locality groups for everything.

The intersecting iterators get their performance by being able to operate
on large rows to avoid the penalty of checking each row. Minimize the
number of partitions you have and it should clear up your issues.


Sent from my phone, pardon the typos and brevity.
On Nov 9, 2012 12:24 PM, "William Slacum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> I'll ask for someone to verify this comment for me (look @ u John W
> Vines), but the bloom filter helps when you have a discrete number of
> column families that will appear across many rows.
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Anthony Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ah, ok, I was under the impression that this would be really fast since I
>> have a column family bloom filter turned on.  Is this not correct?
>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:15 PM, William Slacum <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> When I said smaller of tablets, I really mean smaller number of rows :)
>>> My apologies.
>>> So if you're searching for a random column family in a table, like with
>>> a `scan -c <cf>` in the shell, it will start at row 0 and work sequentially
>>> up to row 10000000 until it finds the cf.
>>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Anthony Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>>> This scan is without the intersecting iterator.  I'm just trying to
>>>> pull back a single data record at the moment which corresponds to scanning
>>>> for one column family.  I'll try with a smaller number of tablets, but is
>>>> the computation effort the same for the scan I am doing?
>>>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:02 PM, William Slacum <
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> So that means you have roughly 312.5k rows per tablet, which means
>>>>> about 725k column families in any given tablet. The intersecting iterator
>>>>> will work at a row per time, so I think at any given moment, it will be
>>>>> working through 32 at a time and doing a linear scan through the RFile
>>>>> blocks. With RFile indices, that check is usually pretty fast, but you're
>>>>> having go through 4 orders of magnitude more data sequentially than you can
>>>>> work on. If you can experiment and re-ingest with a smaller number of
>>>>> tablets, anywhere between 15 and 45, I think you will see better
>>>>> performance.
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Anthony Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>>>>> Failed to answer the original question - 15 tablet servers, 32
>>>>>> tablets/splits.
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Anthony Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>>>>>> I've tried a number of different settings of table.split.threshold.
>>>>>>>  I started at 1G and bumped it down to 128M and the cf scan is still ~30
>>>>>>> seconds for both.  I've also used less rows - 00000 to 99999 and still see
>>>>>>> similar performance numbers.  I thought the column family bloom filter
>>>>>>> would help deal with large row space but sparsely populated column space.
>>>>>>>  Is that correct?
>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:49 AM, William Slacum <
>>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm more inclined to believe it's because you have to search across
>>>>>>>> 10M different rows to find any given column family, since they're randomly,
>>>>>>>> and possibly uniformly, distributed. How many tablets are you searching