[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3516?focusedWorklogId=80508&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:worklog-tabpanel#worklog-80508
]
ASF GitHub Bot logged work on BEAM-3516:
----------------------------------------
Author: ASF GitHub Bot
Created on: 14/Mar/18 19:56
Start Date: 14/Mar/18 19:56
Worklog Time Spent: 10m
Work Description: NathanHowell commented on issue #4860: [BEAM-3516]
Spanner BatchFn does not respect mutation limits
URL: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/4860#issuecomment-373154211
Hi @mairbek and @dhalperi, could you take a look at this change? It's a bit
light on tests..
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
Issue Time Tracking
-------------------
Worklog Id: (was: 80508)
Time Spent: 20m (was: 10m)
> SpannerWriteGroupFn does not respect mutation limits
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: BEAM-3516
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3516
> Project: Beam
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: runner-dataflow
> Affects Versions: 2.2.0
> Reporter: Ryan Gordon
> Assignee: Thomas Groh
> Priority: Major
> Time Spent: 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> When using SpannerIO.write(), if it happens to be a large batch or a table
> with indexes its very possible it can hit the Spanner Mutations Limitation
> and fail with the following error:
> {quote}Jan 02, 2018 2:42:59 PM
> org.apache.beam.runners.dataflow.util.MonitoringUtil$LoggingHandler process
> SEVERE: 2018-01-02T22:42:57.873Z: (3e7c871d215e890b):
> com.google.cloud.spanner.SpannerException: INVALID_ARGUMENT:
> io.grpc.StatusRuntimeException: INVALID_ARGUMENT: The transaction contains
> too many mutations. Insert and update operations count with the multiplicity
> of the number of columns they affect. For example, inserting values into one
> key column and four non-key columns count as five mutations total for the
> insert. Delete and delete range operations count as one mutation regardless
> of the number of columns affected. The total mutation count includes any
> changes to indexes that the transaction generates. Please reduce the number
> of writes, or use fewer indexes. (Maximum number: 20000)
> links {
> description: "Cloud Spanner limits documentation."
> url: "https://cloud.google.com/spanner/docs/limits";
> }
> at
> com.google.cloud.spanner.SpannerExceptionFactory.newSpannerExceptionPreformatted(SpannerExceptionFactory.java:119)
> at
> com.google.cloud.spanner.SpannerExceptionFactory.newSpannerException(SpannerExceptionFactory.java:43)
> at
> com.google.cloud.spanner.SpannerExceptionFactory.newSpannerException(SpannerExceptionFactory.java:80)
> at
> com.google.cloud.spanner.spi.v1.GrpcSpannerRpc.get(GrpcSpannerRpc.java:404)
> at
> com.google.cloud.spanner.spi.v1.GrpcSpannerRpc.commit(GrpcSpannerRpc.java:376)
> at
> com.google.cloud.spanner.SpannerImpl$SessionImpl$2.call(SpannerImpl.java:729)
> at
> com.google.cloud.spanner.SpannerImpl$SessionImpl$2.call(SpannerImpl.java:726)
> at com.google.cloud.spanner.SpannerImpl.runWithRetries(SpannerImpl.java:200)
> at
> com.google.cloud.spanner.SpannerImpl$SessionImpl.writeAtLeastOnce(SpannerImpl.java:725)
> at
> com.google.cloud.spanner.SessionPool$PooledSession.writeAtLeastOnce(SessionPool.java:248)
> at
> com.google.cloud.spanner.DatabaseClientImpl.writeAtLeastOnce(DatabaseClientImpl.java:37)
> at
> org.apache.beam.sdk.io.gcp.spanner.SpannerWriteGroupFn.flushBatch(SpannerWriteGroupFn.java:108)
> at
> org.apache.beam.sdk.io.gcp.spanner.SpannerWriteGroupFn.processElement(SpannerWriteGroupFn.java:79)
> {quote}
>
> As a workaround we can override the "withBatchSizeBytes" to something much
> smaller:
> {quote}mutations.apply("Write", SpannerIO
> .write()
> // Artificially reduce the max batch size b/c the batcher currently doesn't
> // take into account the 20000 mutation multiplicity limit
> .withBatchSizeBytes(1024) // 1KB
> .withProjectId("#PROJECTID#")
> .withInstanceId("#INSTANCE#")
> .withDatabaseId("#DATABASE#")
> );
> {quote}
> While this is not as efficient, it at least allows it to work consistently
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
