[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-4278?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16356694#comment-16356694
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on PHOENIX-4278:
-----------------------------------------
Github user ohadshacham commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/phoenix/pull/291#discussion_r166868712
--- Diff:
phoenix-core/src/main/java/org/apache/phoenix/schema/PTableImpl.java ---
@@ -1038,32 +1038,21 @@ public void setValue(PColumn column, byte[]
byteValue) {
@Override
public void delete() {
newMutations();
- // 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()) {
-
put.add(SchemaUtil.getEmptyColumnFamily(PTableImpl.this),
TransactionFactory.getTransactionFactory().getTransactionContext().getFamilyDeleteMarker(),
ts,
- HConstants.EMPTY_BYTE_ARRAY);
- } else {
- for (PColumnFamily colFamily : families) {
- put.add(colFamily.getName().getBytes(),
TransactionFactory.getTransactionFactory().getTransactionContext().getFamilyDeleteMarker(),
ts,
- 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
existence.
> 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
(v7.6.3#76005)
