You could try thread-dumping the regionserver to try and figure where
its hung up. Counters are usually fast so maybe its something to do
w/ 8k of them in the one row. What kinda numbers are you seeing? How
much RAM you throwing at the problem?
Yours,
St.Ack
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Sebastian Bauer <ad...@ugame.net.pl> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> maybe i'll get help here :)
>
> I have 2 tables, UserToAdv and AdvToUsers.
>
> UserToAdv is simple:
> { "row_id" => [ {"adv:<id>":<counter> },
> {"adv:<id>":<counter> },
> .....about 100 columns
> ]
> only one kind of operation is perform - increasing counter:
> client.atomicIncrement("UsersToAdv", ID, column, 1)
>
>
> AdvToUsers have one column familie: "user:" inside this i have about 8000
> columns with format: "user:<cookie>"
> what i'm doing on DB is increasing counter inside "user:<cookie>":
>
> client.atomicIncrement("AdvToUsers", ID, column, 1)
>
> i have 2 regions:
>
>
> first one:
> UsersToAdv,6FEC716B3960D1E8208DE6B06993A68D,1273580007602
> stores=1, storefiles=1, storefileSizeMB=8, memstoreSizeMB=9,
> storefileIndexSizeMB=0
> UsersToAdv,0FDD84B9124B98B05A5E40F47C12DC45,1273580531847
> stores=1, storefiles=1, storefileSizeMB=4, memstoreSizeMB=4,
> storefileIndexSizeMB=0
> AdvToUsers,5735,1273580575873
> stores=1, storefiles=1, storefileSizeMB=15, memstoreSizeMB=10,
> storefileIndexSizeMB=0
> UsersToAdv,67CB411B48A7B83F0B863AC615285060,1273580533380
> stores=1, storefiles=1, storefileSizeMB=4, memstoreSizeMB=4,
> storefileIndexSizeMB=0
> UsersToAdv,4012667F3E78C6431E3DD84641002FCE,1273580532995
> stores=1, storefiles=1, storefileSizeMB=4, memstoreSizeMB=4,
> storefileIndexSizeMB=0
> UsersToAdv,5FE4A7506737CE0F38E254E62E23FE45,1273580533380
> stores=1, storefiles=1, storefileSizeMB=4, memstoreSizeMB=4,
> storefileIndexSizeMB=0
> UsersToAdv,47E95EE30A11EBE45F055AC57EB2676E,1273580532995
> stores=1, storefiles=1, storefileSizeMB=4, memstoreSizeMB=4,
> storefileIndexSizeMB=0
> UsersToAdv,37F9573415D9069B7E5810012AAD9CB7,1273580532258
> stores=1, storefiles=1, storefileSizeMB=4, memstoreSizeMB=4,
> storefileIndexSizeMB=0
> UsersToAdv,1FFFDF082566D93153B34BFE0C44A9BF,1273580532173
> stores=1, storefiles=1, storefileSizeMB=4, memstoreSizeMB=4,
> storefileIndexSizeMB=0
> UsersToAdv,17C93FB0047BC4D660C6570B734CBE17,1273580531847
> stores=1, storefiles=1, storefileSizeMB=4, memstoreSizeMB=4,
> storefileIndexSizeMB=0
> UsersToAdv,27DFD8F02CD98FF57E8334837C73C57A,1273580532173
> stores=1, storefiles=1, storefileSizeMB=4, memstoreSizeMB=4,
> storefileIndexSizeMB=0
>
> second one:
> UsersToAdv,57C568066D35D09B4AF6CD7D68681144,1273580533427
> stores=1, storefiles=1, storefileSizeMB=4, memstoreSizeMB=4,
> storefileIndexSizeMB=0
> UsersToAdv,4FA6A1A2681E2D252CCF765B140369EF,1273580533427
> stores=1, storefiles=1, storefileSizeMB=4, memstoreSizeMB=4,
> storefileIndexSizeMB=0
> AdvToUsers,,1273580575966
> stores=1, storefiles=1, storefileSizeMB=1, memstoreSizeMB=1,
> storefileIndexSizeMB=0
> UsersToAdv,07B296AC590061025B382B163E3C149E,1273580533023
> stores=1, storefiles=1, storefileSizeMB=4, memstoreSizeMB=4,
> storefileIndexSizeMB=0
> UsersToAdv,3015D5DB07E2F4D30A19DEB354A85B52,1273580532258
> stores=1, storefiles=1, storefileSizeMB=4, memstoreSizeMB=4,
> storefileIndexSizeMB=0
> AdvToUsers,5859,1273580580940
> stores=1, storefiles=1, storefileSizeMB=9, memstoreSizeMB=9,
> storefileIndexSizeMB=0
> AdvToUsers,5315,1273580575966
> stores=1, storefiles=1, storefileSizeMB=14, memstoreSizeMB=12,
> storefileIndexSizeMB=0
> AdvToUsers,5825,1273580580940
> stores=1, storefiles=1, storefileSizeMB=8, memstoreSizeMB=8,
> storefileIndexSizeMB=0
> AdvToUsers,5671,1273580578114
> stores=1, storefiles=1, storefileSizeMB=8, memstoreSizeMB=7,
> storefileIndexSizeMB=0
> UsersToAdv,,1273580533023
> stores=1, storefiles=1, storefileSizeMB=4, memstoreSizeMB=4,
> storefileIndexSizeMB=0
> AdvToUsers,5457,1273580578114
> stores=1, storefiles=1, storefileSizeMB=8, memstoreSizeMB=8,
> storefileIndexSizeMB=0
>
> number of queries on both tables are equal, but load is greater on second
> region because of AdvToUsers
>
> is there any solution to increase performance atomicIncrement operation on
> column families with so many(8000) columns?
>
> Thank You,
>
> Sebastian Bauer
>
