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 Plain View
HBase >> mail # user >> Re: row filter - binary comparator at certain range


+
Tony Duan 2013-10-21, 04:31
+
Michael Segel 2013-10-21, 11:36
+
Michael Segel 2013-10-21, 11:38
+
Premal Shah 2013-10-21, 05:42
+
James Taylor 2013-10-21, 06:05
+
Vladimir Rodionov 2013-10-21, 16:14
+
James Taylor 2013-10-21, 16:37
+
Michael Segel 2013-10-21, 20:05
+
James Taylor 2013-10-21, 20:26
Copy link to this message
-
Re: row filter - binary comparator at certain range
What do you call hashing the row key?
Or hashing the row key and then appending the row key to the hash?
Or hashing the row key, truncating the hash value to some subset and then appending the row key to the value?

The problem is that there is specific meaning to the term salt. Re-using it here will cause confusion because you're implying something you don't mean to imply.

you could say prepend a truncated hash of the key, however… is prepend a real word? ;-) (I am sorry, I am not a grammar nazi, nor an English major. )

So even outside of Phoenix, the concept is the same.
Even with a truncated hash, you will find that over time, all but the tail N regions will only be half full.
This could be both good and bad.

(Where N is your number 8 or 16 allowable hash values.)

You've solved potentially one problem… but still have other issues that you need to address.
I guess the simple answer is to double the region sizes and not care that most of your regions will be 1/2 the max size…  but the size you really want and 8-16 regions will be up to twice as big.

On Oct 21, 2013, at 3:26 PM, James Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> What do you think it should be called, because
> "prepending-row-key-with-single-hashed-byte" doesn't have a very good ring
> to it. :-)
>
> Agree that getting the row key design right is crucial.
>
> The range of "prepending-row-key-with-single-hashed-byte" is declarative
> when you create your table in Phoenix, so you typically declare an upper
> bound based on your cluster size (not 255, but maybe 8 or 16). We've run
> the numbers and it's typically faster, but as with most things, not always.
>
> HTH,
> James
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Michael Segel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> Then its not a SALT. And please don't use the term 'salt' because it has
>> specific meaning outside to what you want it to mean.  Just like saying
>> HBase has ACID because you write the entire row as an atomic element.  But
>> I digress….
>>
>> Ok so to your point…
>>
>> 1 byte == 255 possible values.
>>
>> So which will be faster.
>>
>> creating a list of the 1 byte truncated hash of each possible timestamp in
>> your range, or doing 255 separate range scans with the start and stop range
>> key set?
>>
>> That will give you the results you want, however… I'd go back and have
>> them possibly rethink the row key if they can … assuming this is the base
>> access pattern.
>>
>> HTH
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 21, 2013, at 11:37 AM, James Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Phoenix restricts salting to a single byte.
>>> Salting perhaps is misnamed, as the salt byte is a stable hash based on
>> the
>>> row key.
>>> Phoenix's skip scan supports sub-key ranges.
>>> We've found salting in general to be faster (though there are cases where
>>> it's not), as it ensures better parallelization.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> James
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Vladimir Rodionov
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> FuzzyRowFilter does not work on sub-key ranges.
>>>> Salting is bad for any scan operation, unfortunately. When salt prefix
>>>> cardinality is small (1-2 bytes),
>>>> one can try something similar to FuzzyRowFilter but with additional
>>>> sub-key range support.
>>>> If salt prefix cardinality is high (> 2 bytes) - do a full scan with
>> your
>>>> own Filter (for timestamp ranges).
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Vladimir Rodionov
>>>> Principal Platform Engineer
>>>> Carrier IQ, www.carrieriq.com
>>>> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: Premal Shah [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>>> Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2013 10:42 PM
>>>> To: user
>>>> Subject: Re: row filter - binary comparator at certain range
>>>>
>>>> Have you looked at FuzzyRowFilter? Seems to me that it might satisfy
>> your
>>>> use-case.
>>>>
>>>>
>> http://blog.sematext.com/2012/08/09/consider-using-fuzzyrowfilter-when-in-need-for-secondary-indexes-in-hbase/
+
James Taylor 2013-10-21, 22:07
+
Michael Segel 2013-10-22, 00:58
+
James Taylor 2013-10-22, 03:54
+
Asaf Mesika 2013-11-01, 07:25
+
Vladimir Rodionov 2013-10-21, 16:50
+
Vladimir Rodionov 2013-10-21, 16:36
+
Tony Duan 2013-10-22, 07:55
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