Your reasoning looks good.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[email protected]
> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In IncreasingToUpperBoundRegionSplitPolicy, w.e loop over all the stores
> and we look at 2 things.
>
> First, if the store can't be split, then we return immediatly with false
> without checking the other stores. Then if the store can be split and is
> big enought, we return immediatly (break) with true.
>
> The logic seems to be wrong to be. In the 2nd case, should we not continue
> to loop over the other stores and see if one can't be split? Else we will
> trigger a split on a region where some stores can't be split. I will sply
> remove the "break".
>
> Does anyone have another opinion on that? Else I will open a JIRA and send
> a patch...
>
> JM
>
> @Override
> protected boolean shouldSplit() {
> if (region.shouldForceSplit()) return true;
> boolean foundABigStore = false;
> // Get count of regions that have the same common table as this.region
> int tableRegionsCount = getCountOfCommonTableRegions();
> // Get size to check
> long sizeToCheck = getSizeToCheck(tableRegionsCount);
> LOG.debug("sizeToCheck = " + sizeToCheck);
>
> for (Store store : region.getStores().values()) {
> // If any of the stores is unable to split (eg they contain reference
> files)
> // then don't split
> if ((!store.canSplit())) {
> return false;
> }
>
> // Mark if any store is big enough
> long size = store.getSize();
> if (size > sizeToCheck) {
> LOG.debug("ShouldSplit because " + store.getColumnFamilyName() +
> " size=" + size + ", sizeToCheck=" + sizeToCheck +
> ", regionsWithCommonTable=" + tableRegionsCount);
> foundABigStore = true;
> break;
> }
> }
>
> return foundABigStore;
> }
>
