ASF GitHub Bot commented on PHOENIX-4278:

Github user ohadshacham commented on a diff in the pull request:

    --- Diff: 
phoenix-core/src/main/java/org/apache/phoenix/schema/PTableImpl.java ---
    @@ -1038,32 +1038,21 @@ public void setValue(PColumn column, byte[] 
byteValue) {
             public void delete() {
    -            // we're using the Tephra column family delete marker here to 
prevent the translation 
    -            // of deletes to puts by the Tephra's TransactionProcessor
    -            if (PTableImpl.this.isTransactional()) {
    -                Put put = new Put(key);
    -                if (families.isEmpty()) {
    -                            HConstants.EMPTY_BYTE_ARRAY);
    -                } else {
    -                    for (PColumnFamily colFamily : families) {
    -                        put.add(colFamily.getName().getBytes(), 
    -                                HConstants.EMPTY_BYTE_ARRAY);
    -                    }
    -                }
    -                deleteRow = put;                
    --- End diff --
    No, since instead of writing directly the family deletion marker we perform 
a regular delete operation using the transaction processor. The transaction 
processor writes this family deletion marker and in here we just check for its 

> Implement pure client side transactional index maintenance
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: PHOENIX-4278
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-4278
>             Project: Phoenix
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: James Taylor
>            Assignee: Ohad Shacham
>            Priority: Major
> The index maintenance for transactions follows the same model as non 
> transactional tables - coprocessor based on data table updates that looks up 
> previous row value to perform maintenance. This is necessary for non 
> transactional tables to ensure the rows are locked so that a consistent view 
> may be obtained. However, for transactional tables, the time stamp oracle 
> ensures uniqueness of time stamps (via transaction IDs) and the filtering 
> handles a scan seeing the "true" last committed value for a row. Thus, 
> there's no hard dependency to perform this on the server side.
> Moving the index maintenance to the client side would prevent any RS->RS RPC 
> calls (which have proved to be troublesome for HBase). It would require 
> returning more data to the client (i.e. the prior row value), but this seems 
> like a reasonable tradeoff.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

Reply via email to