Comments inline...
Thanks,
Colton McInroy
* Director of Security Engineering
Phone
(Toll Free)
_US_ (888)-818-1344 Press 2
_UK_ 0-800-635-0551 Press 2
My Extension 101
24/7 Support [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Website http://www.dosarrest.com
On 9/29/2013 12:24 PM, Aaron McCurry wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Colton McInroy <[email protected]>wrote:
What about the family attribute?
Sorry about that forgot to add family info into my last response. The
family attribute is basically a prefix to all the column names in the
record. It was used in an early version of Blur to calculate Row Queries.
But now there is an explicit way to call a Row query:
http://incubator.apache.org/blur/docs/0.2.0/data-model.html#row_query
Assuming that the renaming of core Blur objects occurs (Row and Record) the
family attribute will likely be removed. But for now it needs to be
populated.
Hmm... will the change be backwards compatibile? I am looking to
implement this system as soon as I can, and I would prefer not to have
to rebuild all of my code this close into the implementation. Any idea
when these changes will occur? I don't mind using the latest git code.
Ideally, I would just like to insert records into a table... I was
thinking that I would create a table for each program that's getting it's
logs indexed. I just had a though about this though. Perhaps I could create
a table for a time period, like for a month, then use the program name as
the rowid. That still leaves me with a recordid which I would prefer
automatically have generated and I am not sure if it is. If it isn't
uniquely generated, you suggest I use something like UUID.randomUUID()?
UUID is fine but for the recordid is only has to be unique within the Row.
So it could be anything.
Ok, so if a row is given a UUID, and that row contains 10000 records
each with UUIDs as well, that should act as a bulk insert? Like this...
|Iface client = BlurClient.getClient("controller1:40010,controller2:40010");
List recordMutations = new ArrayList();
for (Record rec : BufferedRecords) {
||| recordMutations.add(new
RecordMutation(RecordMutationType.REPLACE_ENTIRE_RECORD, rec));|
}
RowMutation mutation = new RowMutation("PROGRAMNAME", UUID.randomUUID(), true,
RowMutationType.REPLACE_ROW, recordMutations, false);
mutation.setRecordMutations(recordMutations);
client.mutate(mutation);|
Or do you recommend something else?
I am right at the point now where I can start inserting the records. I
have the records being generated during the parsing of entries then the
records are just buffered for now. The next step is to take those
buffering log entries and put them into blur.
Btw, I will likely be preposing the API changes soon. I would love other
people to weigh in on them, I really don't want to change them but I think
it's the right thing to do. Plus I don't want to have to rename them again
after we go through the all the trouble. So getting feedback is critical.
How soon is soon? I am currently in the process of trying to build
software and a network for this, so if there is anything I can do to
help give input, please let me know. I can also test anything related to
this project that I am working on.
Thanks,
Aaron
Thanks,
Colton McInroy
* Director of Security Engineering
Phone
(Toll Free)
_US_ (888)-818-1344 Press 2
_UK_ 0-800-635-0551 Press 2
My Extension 101
24/7 Support [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Website http://www.dosarrest.com
On 9/29/2013 7:29 AM, Aaron McCurry wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Colton McInroy <[email protected]
wrote:
Glad to see you resolved this Aaron.
I am just in the process of building my parsing engine right now, so I
will make sure I update my build before I start doing the mutate calls.
I have been reading the usage examples on mutate calls. I find it
somewhat
odd there is only mutate and no insert as well. I guess they are probably
both treated the same. I am getting close to building the add record
component to my parsing engine, but reading the code has left me somewhat
puzzled. With lucene I treated each "Document" with various "Field"
types,
with Fields also being referenced as "Categories" for the facet indexing.
Now with Blur it is much different. This mutate call seems to require
three
components which I am unsure of...
The rowid is different from a recordid how?... and can I insert just rows
with automatically generated ids? The data coming in won't have any
unique
id's associated with it, and with lucene in my previous experience you
never needed to specify a recordid or rowid, it would automatically
create
a document id upon adding a new "Document" to the index.
I am totaly clueless as to what the family attribute is for.
I notice there are no column types. In my experience with Lucene you had
to specify the "Field" types to integer, string, etc but I see no ability
to do that in Blur. Is that handled automatically or something?
Ok, well you bring up some good points. We have had some discussions
about
renaming the objects in Blur to be closer to Lucene.
Records == Documents
Rows == Document Group
Column == Field
The rowid is present for 2 purposes.
1. The rowid uniquely identities the group of records
2. The rowid is used to distribute the rows evenly across all the
shards
within the table. It hashes the rowid and using the BlurPartitioner to
stored/index the row.
The recordid is used to locate the record within the row so that single
records can be fetched without the entire row.
If we go forward with the rename in 0.3.0 it will likely be something
like:
Column => Field
Record => Document
Row =>DocumentGroup
RecordId => DocId
RowId => DocGroupId
Another change will be that Documents and DocumentGroups will be allowed
as
indexable units (instead of just Rows now). However the DocId and
DocGroupId will likely still be required. You could make the UUID's or
something like that.
As far as the types, you will need to use the addColumnDefinition call:
http://incubator.apache.org/**blur/docs/0.2.0/Blur.html#Fn_**
Blur_addColumnDefinition<http://incubator.apache.org/blur/docs/0.2.0/Blur.html#Fn_Blur_addColumnDefinition>
And you can reference the types:
http://incubator.apache.org/**blur/docs/0.2.0/data-model.**html#types<http://incubator.apache.org/blur/docs/0.2.0/data-model.html#types>
Hope this helps, I know it's a bit clumsy but we have plans to improve.
Thanks,
Aaron
Thanks,
Colton McInroy
* Director of Security Engineering
Phone
(Toll Free)
_US_ (888)-818-1344 Press 2
_UK_ 0-800-635-0551 Press 2
My Extension 101
24/7 Support [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Website http://www.dosarrest.com
On 9/29/2013 6:20 AM, Aaron McCurry (JIRA) wrote:
[ https://issues.apache.org/****jira/browse/BLUR-245?page=com.**
** <https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/BLUR-245?page=com.**>
atlassian.jira.plugin.system.****issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel<h**
ttps://issues.apache.org/jira/**browse/BLUR-245?page=com.**
atlassian.jira.plugin.system.**issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BLUR-245?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel>
]
Aaron McCurry closed BLUR-245.
------------------------------
Resolution: Fixed
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/****repos/asf?p=incubator-blur.****<https://git-wip-us.apache.org/**repos/asf?p=incubator-blur.**>
git;a=commit;h=****6b000703457e64d5c9334426ed012c****027a359eb3<
https://git-wip-**us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=**
incubator-blur.git;a=commit;h=**6b000703457e64d5c9334426ed012c**
027a359eb3<https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-blur.git;a=commit;h=6b000703457e64d5c9334426ed012c027a359eb3>
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/****repos/asf?p=incubator-blur.****<https://git-wip-us.apache.org/**repos/asf?p=incubator-blur.**>
git;a=commit;h=****ffc817c4401ce53b6ba1b0fed70026****0d34c8acac<
https://git-wip-**us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=**
incubator-blur.git;a=commit;h=**ffc817c4401ce53b6ba1b0fed70026**
0d34c8acac<https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-blur.git;a=commit;h=ffc817c4401ce53b6ba1b0fed700260d34c8acac>
There is a deadlock condition that can occur during mutate batch
calls.
------------------------------****----------------------------**--**
-----------
Key: BLUR-245
URL: https://issues.apache.org/****
jira/browse/BLUR-245<https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/BLUR-245>
<https://**issues.apache.org/jira/browse/**BLUR-245<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BLUR-245>
Project: Apache Blur
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Blur
Affects Versions: 0.3.0, 0.2.1
Reporter: Aaron McCurry
Priority: Blocker
Fix For: 0.3.0, 0.2.1
Basically there is a thread pool that the mutates use for performing
the
mutate. However the batch mutate call in the index manager submits a
job
then in that submitted job it creates more jobs (one for each shard).
This
can cause a deadlock condition in the thread pool, because the thread
pool
is a fixed size.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)
