> On 2010-10-24 20:05:55, Ryan Rawson wrote: > > trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/MemStore.java, > > line 495 > > <http://review.cloudera.org/r/1088/diff/2/?file=15909#file15909line495> > > > > yeah you cant compare against memstoreTS because if you have this in > > here you wont be able to ever increment values that were inserted into the > > future. you'd just leave them there and continually see it in the 'get' > > part and then in this code bit leave it in place and create a new KV that > > is masked by the future KV. > > > > It won't be possible for that insert to be part of an uncommitted > > change because of the rowlock however. So no atomic-rules will have been > > broken. > > Jonathan Gray wrote: > i'm not sure i follow. am i doing it wrong? this should be exactly the > same as what's there. > > also, we are breaking the atomic-rules across the Increment. Each column > is not broken but across them it is (for reads not writes). > > It seems like we could use RWCC though for increments. I think it's fine > that if you're using increment you can never write data into it w/ another > API (or really, with manual timestamps).
there is no easy way to include RWCC right now, because you have to be careful about 'committing' the new values before removing the old ones. This is a bit tricky because normally the RWCC 'commit' happens at the HRegion level, and right now we are inside memstore/store. Hopefully people won't need atomic reads of multi incremented values. If one is doing counters this would be the case. Javadoc should definitely yell about this. > On 2010-10-24 20:05:55, Ryan Rawson wrote: > > trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/MemStore.java, > > line 377 > > <http://review.cloudera.org/r/1088/diff/2/?file=15909#file15909line377> > > > > I'm not sure how this code is optional for your new 'upsert', here are > > some use cases that I found painful: > > > > - when the KV is in snapshot we can create new KVs in memstore with the > > same TS. This means you have a dup and before we had this new 'dup' code > > it ruined counts badly. > > - the Math.max() bit it to ensure the new KV isnt being created in the > > past a bit and accidently duplicating a timestamp inside the snapshot. > > Jonathan Gray wrote: > what do you mean by optional? there shouldn't be any real difference. > this code is basically the exact same code that was there but now pulled into > a method that can be reused. The original updateColumnValue code was structured like this: - look in snapshot - loop over kvset Create new KV, insert it - loop over kvset But you only included the 2nd half. Your new 'upsert' only includes half the implementation of updateColumnValue. This comes up in this scenario: - increment at TS=100 - snapshot, now we have kvset={} and a KV, TS=100 in snapshot - increment at TS=100 Without the code i have above we'll end up with 2 KVs, both of TS=100, one in kvset, one in snapshot, which then becomes a HFile. When future reads happen, if they don't see the 'correct' KV, you will end up with lost updates. In theory the 'read memstore first' and 'order duplicate TS KVs' patches should resolve this. Lost updates reallllllly suck though. I'd probably recommend the conservative course, because I already went thru this and it sucks. If you decide that you are willing to risk it, I might recommend this particular test case: - increment some data at TS=X - snapshot at TS=X - increment some data at TS=X, now you have 2 * KV, TS=X - flush to hfile - increment at TS=X, ensure you dont lose any updates - snapshot/flush with TS=X in kvset->snapshot->hfile - compact the 2 hfiles both with TS=X in them - do read and make sure the value is what you expect. By using the manual environment edge you can control the currentTimeMillis() returned inside HRegion and down. This covers the worst case scenario I think, since normally one would get increments and you shouldn't get TS=X * 2 in a single HFile. - Ryan ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://review.cloudera.org/r/1088/#review1641 ----------------------------------------------------------- On 2010-10-24 19:29:07, Jonathan Gray wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://review.cloudera.org/r/1088/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated 2010-10-24 19:29:07) > > > Review request for hbase, stack and khemani. > > > Summary > ------- > > Adds a new Increment class that allows multiple columns (each w/ own > increment amount) in a single row being incremented in one call. > > The big wins here are being able to do multiple columns in a row in a single > RPC and having it be appended/synced to the WAL in a single call. > > The current trade-off is that you lose atomicity to readers (ie. this does > not currently use RWCC). Eventually it could but for the current use case I > am building this for, it's okay like this. > > > This addresses bug HBASE-2946. > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2946 > > > Diffs > ----- > > trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/HTable.java 1026930 > trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/HTableInterface.java > 1026930 > trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/Increment.java > PRE-CREATION > trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/io/HbaseObjectWritable.java > 1026930 > trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/ipc/HRegionInterface.java > 1026930 > trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/HRegion.java > 1026930 > trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/HRegionServer.java > 1026930 > trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/MemStore.java > 1026930 > trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/Store.java 1026930 > trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/rest/client/RemoteHTable.java > 1026930 > trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/client/TestFromClientSide.java > 1026930 > > Diff: http://review.cloudera.org/r/1088/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > Added TestFromClientSide.testIncrement() which adds some client-side tests of > Increment (and mixing w/ original icv call). That passes and most the way > through a test suite run. > > > Thanks, > > Jonathan > >
