[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18798?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17772218#comment-17772218
]
Jacek Lewandowski commented on CASSANDRA-18798:
-----------------------------------------------
As far as I understand the problem, the issue is that the cell paths for new
items are evaluated when the TransactionStatement is preprocessed on the
coordinator, before the transaction is submitted. Obviously, if the execution
is delayed for whatever reason, including repair, although it finishes much
further in time, it may turn out that the items added by it will be in front of
the items added by transactions that finished much earlier.
However, there seems to be a second evaluation of updates - those that refer to
the data that needs to be read first - so-called referential operations. Those
updates are evaluated as a part of the application phase - thus, after reading
and before writing, so that no other transaction can interleave those
operations for that particular cell (partition).
To me, the easiest way to fix this problem would be to make the append
operation to be recognized as a referential operation. Or, discriminate the
operations that can be computed on the submission time and those that need to
be evaluated later, during the application phase. Or evaluate all the updates
at the application phase.
> Appending to list in Accord transactions uses insertion timestamp
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-18798
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18798
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Accord
> Reporter: Jaroslaw Kijanowski
> Assignee: Henrik Ingo
> Priority: Normal
> Attachments: image-2023-09-26-20-05-25-846.png
>
>
> Given the following schema:
> {code:java}
> CREATE KEYSPACE IF NOT EXISTS accord WITH replication = {'class':
> 'SimpleStrategy', 'replication_factor': 3};
> CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS accord.list_append(id int PRIMARY KEY,contents
> LIST<bigint>);
> TRUNCATE accord.list_append;{code}
> And the following two possible queries executed by 10 threads in parallel:
> {code:java}
> BEGIN TRANSACTION
> LET row = (SELECT * FROM list_append WHERE id = ?);
> SELECT row.contents;
> COMMIT TRANSACTION;"
> BEGIN TRANSACTION
> UPDATE list_append SET contents += ? WHERE id = ?;
> COMMIT TRANSACTION;"
> {code}
> there seems to be an issue with transaction guarantees. Here's an excerpt in
> the edn format from a test.
> {code:java}
> {:type :invoke :process 8 :value [[:append 5 352]] :tid 3 :n 52
> :time 1692607285967116627}
> {:type :invoke :process 9 :value [[:r 5 nil]] :tid 1 :n 54
> :time 1692607286078732473}
> {:type :invoke :process 6 :value [[:append 5 553]] :tid 5 :n 53
> :time 1692607286133833428}
> {:type :invoke :process 7 :value [[:append 5 455]] :tid 4 :n 55
> :time 1692607286149702511}
> {:type :ok :process 8 :value [[:append 5 352]] :tid 3 :n 52
> :time 1692607286156314099}
> {:type :invoke :process 5 :value [[:r 5 nil]] :tid 9 :n 52
> :time 1692607286167090389}
> {:type :ok :process 9 :value [[:r 5 [303 304 604 6 306 509 909 409 912
> 411 514 415 719 419 19 623 22 425 24 926 25 832 130 733 430 533 29 933 333
> 537 934 538 740 139 744 938 544 42 646 749 242 546 547 548 753 450 150 349 48
> 852 352]]] :tid 1 :n 54 :time 1692607286168657534}
> {:type :invoke :process 1 :value [[:r 5 nil]] :tid 0 :n 51
> :time 1692607286201762938}
> {:type :ok :process 7 :value [[:append 5 455]] :tid 4 :n 55
> :time 1692607286245571513}
> {:type :invoke :process 7 :value [[:r 5 nil]] :tid 4 :n 56
> :time 1692607286245655775}
> {:type :ok :process 5 :value [[:r 5 [303 304 604 6 306 509 909 409 912
> 411 514 415 719 419 19 623 22 425 24 926 25 832 130 733 430 533 29 933 333
> 537 934 538 740 139 744 938 544 42 646 749 242 546 547 548 753 450 150 349 48
> 852 352 455]]] :tid 9 :n 52 :time 1692607286253928906}
> {:type :invoke :process 5 :value [[:r 5 nil]] :tid 9 :n 53
> :time 1692607286254095215}
> {:type :ok :process 6 :value [[:append 5 553]] :tid 5 :n 53
> :time 1692607286266263422}
> {:type :ok :process 1 :value [[:r 5 [303 304 604 6 306 509 909 409 912
> 411 514 415 719 419 19 623 22 425 24 926 25 832 130 733 430 533 29 933 333
> 537 934 538 740 139 744 938 544 42 646 749 242 546 547 548 753 450 150 349 48
> 852 352 553 455]]] :tid 0 :n 51 :time 1692607286271617955}
> {:type :ok :process 7 :value [[:r 5 [303 304 604 6 306 509 909 409 912
> 411 514 415 719 419 19 623 22 425 24 926 25 832 130 733 430 533 29 933 333
> 537 934 538 740 139 744 938 544 42 646 749 242 546 547 548 753 450 150 349 48
> 852 352 553 455]]] :tid 4 :n 56 :time 1692607286271816933}
> {:type :ok :process 5 :value [[:r 5 [303 304 604 6 306 509 909 409 912
> 411 514 415 719 419 19 623 22 425 24 926 25 832 130 733 430 533 29 933 333
> 537 934 538 740 139 744 938 544 42 646 749 242 546 547 548 753 450 150 349 48
> 852 352 553 455]]] :tid 9 :n 53 :time 1692607286281483026}
> {:type :invoke :process 9 :value [[:r 5 nil]] :tid 1 :n 56
> :time 1692607286284097561}
> {:type :ok :process 9 :value [[:r 5 [303 304 604 6 306 509 909 409 912
> 411 514 415 719 419 19 623 22 425 24 926 25 832 130 733 430 533 29 933 333
> 537 934 538 740 139 744 938 544 42 646 749 242 546 547 548 753 450 150 349 48
> 852 352 553 455]]] :tid 1 :n 56 :time 1692607286306445242}
> {code}
> Processes process 6 and process 7 are appending the values 553 and 455
> respectively. 455 succeeded and a read by process 5 confirms that. But then
> also 553 is appended and a read by process 1 confirms that as well, however
> it sees 553 before 455.
> process 5 reads [... 852 352 455] where as process 1 reads [... 852 352 553
> 455] and the latter order is returned in subsequent reads as well.
> [~blambov] suggested that one reason for that behavior could be the way how
> unfrozen lists are updated. The backing datatype is a _kind of a map_ which
> uses insertion timestamps as indexes which are used to sort the list when the
> list is composed from chunks from various sources/sstables before being
> returned to the client.
> In such a case it indeed can happen, that process 5 reads [... 852 352 455]
> but later process 1 reads [... 852 352 553 455] because 553 has been
> _appended_ with an earlier timestamp than 455 but it has been _committed_
> with a later timestamp.
> Now with Accord we have the timestamp _of the transaction_ at hand. Could
> Accord use that for the index instead? Which would lead to the correct
> behavior? The value 553 has been appended after 455 and using the transaction
> id/timestamp as the list index would place it properly in the underlying map,
> wouldn't it?
> Steps to reproduce:
>
> {code:java}
> git clone https://github.com/datastax/accordclient.git
> git checkout append-to-list-index
> lein run --list-append -t 10 -r 1,2,3,4,5 -n 1000 -H <host-ips> -s `date
> +%s%N` > test-la.edn
>
> curl -L -o elle-cli.zip
> https://github.com/ligurio/elle-cli/releases/download/0.1.6/elle-cli-bin-0.1.6.zip
> unzip -d elle-cli elle-cli.zip
> java -jar elle-cli/target/elle-cli-0.1.6-standalone.jar --model list-append
> --anomalies G0 --consistency-models strict-serializable --directory out-la
> --verbose test-la.edn
> {code}
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
