[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-4051?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16104454#comment-16104454
]
Samarth Jain commented on PHOENIX-4051:
---------------------------------------
bq. For an UPSERT VALUES, the timestamp is gotten from the server at commit
time. This is done so that the timestamp is consistent across all rows being
written.
I don't think this actually happens in practice. In doMiniBatchMutation HBase
tries to acquire as many locks as it can. For the mutations in the batch for
which it is able to acquire row locks, it sets the same timestamp. For the ones
it is not able to, it comes back and tries to acquire locks again in which case
the timestamp ends up being different from the first attempt. This happens more
often when there are concurrent updates to the same rows.
> Prevent out-of-order updates for mutable index updates
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: PHOENIX-4051
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-4051
> Project: Phoenix
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: James Taylor
> Assignee: James Taylor
> Attachments: PHOENIX-4051_v1.patch
>
>
> Out-of-order processing of data rows during index maintenance causes mutable
> indexes to become out of sync with regard to the data table. Here's a simple
> example to illustrate the issue:
> # Assume table T(K,V) and index X(V,K).
> # Upsert T(A, 1) at t10. Index updates: Put X(1,A) at t10.
> # Upsert T(A, 3) at t30. Index updates: Delete X(1,A) at t29, Put X(3,A) at
> t30.
> # Upsert T(A,2) at t20. Index updates: Delete X(1,A) at t19, Put X(2,A) at
> t20, Delete X(2,A) at t29
> Ideally, we'd want to remove the Delete X(1,A) at t29 since this isn't
> correct in terms of timeline consistency, but we can't do that with HBase
> without support for deleting/undoing Delete markers.
> The above is not what is occurring. Instead, when T(A,2) comes in, the Put
> X(2,A) will occur at t20, but the Delete won't occur. This causes more index
> rows than data rows, essentially making it invalid.
> A quick fix is to reset the timestamp of the data table mutations to the
> current time within the preBatchMutate call, when the row is exclusively
> locked. This skirts the issue because then timestamps won't overlap.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
