I also observe this getting slower problem every-time when we re-ingest the
twitter data. One difference is that the duplicate key could happen, and we
know that is indeed duplicate record. To skip the search, we would expect an
“upsert” logic ( just replace the old one :-) ) instead of an insert.
Then maybe we can add some configuration in feed configuration like
create feed MessageFeed using localfs(
("format"="adm"),
("type-name"="typeX"),
("upsert"="true")
);
to indicate that this feed using the upsert logic instead of insert.
One thing we need to confirm is that if “upsert” is actually implemented in a
no-search fashion?
Based on the way we searching the components, only the most recent one will be
popped out. Then blindly insert should be OK logically. Correct me if I missed
some other cases (highly likely :-)).
> On May 8, 2017, at 11:05 AM, Mike Carey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> +0.99 from me.
>
>
> On 5/8/17 9:50 AM, Taewoo Kim wrote:
>> +1 for auto-generated ID case
>>
>> Best,
>> Taewoo
>>
>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Yingyi Bu <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Abdullah has a pending change that disables searches if there's no
>>> secondary indexes [1].
>>> Auto-generated ID could be another case for which we can disable searches
>>> as well.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Yingyi
>>>
>>> [1] https://asterix-gerrit.ics.uci.edu/#/c/1711/
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Wail Alkowaileet <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Devs,
>>>>
>>>> I'm noticing a behavior during the ingestion is that it's getting slower
>>> by
>>>> time. I know that is an expected behavior in LSM-indexes. But what I'm
>>>> seeing is that I can notice the drop in ingestion rate roughly after
>>> having
>>>> 10 components (around ~13 GB). That's what I'm not sure if it's expected?
>>>>
>>>> I tried multiple setups (increasing Memory component size +
>>>> max-mergable-component-size). All of which delayed the problem but not
>>>> solved it. The only part I've never changed is the bloom-filter
>>>> false-positive rate (1%). Which I want to investigate next.
>>>>
>>>> So..
>>>> What I want to suggest is that when the primary key is auto-generated,
>>> why
>>>> AsterixDB looks for duplicates? it seems a wasteful operation to me.
>>> Also,
>>>> can we give the user the ability to tell the index that all keys are
>>> unique
>>>> ? I know I should not trust the user .. but in certain cases, probably
>>> the
>>>> user is certain that the key is unique. Or a more elegant solution can
>>>> shine in the end :-)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> *Regards,*
>>>> Wail Alkowaileet
>>>>
>
