[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-3271?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15814278#comment-15814278
]
Hadoop QA commented on PHOENIX-3271:
------------------------------------
{color:red}-1 overall{color}. Here are the results of testing the latest
attachment
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12846518/PHOENIX-3271_v3.patch
against master branch at commit d8f4594989c0b73945aaffec5649a0b62ac59724.
ATTACHMENT ID: 12846518
{color:green}+1 @author{color}. The patch does not contain any @author
tags.
{color:red}-1 tests included{color}. The patch doesn't appear to include
any new or modified tests.
Please justify why no new tests are needed for this
patch.
Also please list what manual steps were performed to
verify this patch.
{color:green}+1 javac{color}. The applied patch does not increase the
total number of javac compiler warnings.
{color:red}-1 javadoc{color}. The javadoc tool appears to have generated
43 warning messages.
{color:green}+1 release audit{color}. The applied patch does not increase
the total number of release audit warnings.
{color:red}-1 lineLengths{color}. The patch introduces the following lines
longer than 100:
+ String ddl = "CREATE TABLE " + tableName1 + " (K BIGINT NOT NULL
PRIMARY KEY ROW_TIMESTAMP, V VARCHAR)"
+ ddl = "CREATE TABLE " + tableName2 + " (K BIGINT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY
ROW_TIMESTAMP, V VARCHAR)"
+ projectedColumns.add(column.getPosition() == i +
posOff ? column : new PColumnImpl(column, i));
+ final QueryPlan aggPlan = new AggregatePlan(context,
select, statementContext.getCurrentTable(), aggProjector, null,null,
OrderBy.EMPTY_ORDER_BY, null, GroupBy.EMPTY_GROUP_BY, null);
+ private void commitBatchWithHTable(HTable table, Region region,
List<Mutation> mutations, byte[] indexUUID,
+ long blockingMemstoreSize, byte[] indexMaintainersPtr, byte[]
txState) throws IOException {
+ // Need to add indexMaintainers for each mutation as table.batch
can be distributed across servers
+ targetHTable = new HTable(env.getConfiguration(),
projectedTable.getPhysicalName().getBytes());
+ region.getTableDesc().getTableName().getName()) == 0 &&
projectedTable.getRowTimestampColPos() == -1
+ commit(region, mutations, indexUUID,
blockingMemStoreSize, indexMaintainersPtr, txState,
{color:red}-1 core tests{color}. The patch failed these unit tests:
Test results:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-PHOENIX-Build/728//testReport/
Javadoc warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-PHOENIX-Build/728//artifact/patchprocess/patchJavadocWarnings.txt
Console output:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-PHOENIX-Build/728//console
This message is automatically generated.
> Distribute UPSERT SELECT across cluster
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: PHOENIX-3271
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-3271
> Project: Phoenix
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: James Taylor
> Assignee: Ankit Singhal
> Fix For: 4.10.0
>
> Attachments: PHOENIX-3271.patch, PHOENIX-3271_v1.patch,
> PHOENIX-3271_v2.patch, PHOENIX-3271_v3.patch
>
>
> Based on some informal testing we've done, it seems that creation of a local
> index is orders of magnitude faster that creation of global indexes (17
> seconds versus 10-20 minutes - though more data is written in the global
> index case). Under the covers, a global index is created through the running
> of an UPSERT SELECT. Also, UPSERT SELECT provides an easy way of copying a
> table. In both of these cases, the data being upserted must all flow back to
> the same client which can become a bottleneck for a large table. Instead,
> what can be done is to push each separate, chunked UPSERT SELECT call out to
> a different region server for execution there. One way we could implement
> this would be to have an endpoint coprocessor push the chunked UPSERT SELECT
> out to each region server and return the number of rows that were upserted
> back to the client.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
