[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2353?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12879671#action_12879671
 ] 

HBase Review Board commented on HBASE-2353:
-------------------------------------------

Message from: [email protected]


bq.  On 2010-06-16 20:24:22, Kannan Muthukkaruppan wrote:
bq.  > Todd: I know this is already reviewed and committed. I just got around 
to reviewing this and the related HBase-2733. Looks really good!!
bq.  > 
bq.  > One side effect of this change is that now a single WALEdit could 
contain data for more than 1 row. Previously all KVs inside a WALEdit 
corresponded to the same row. I don't think it should cause any problems, but 
thought I should call it out in case others can think of potential issues.
bq.  > 
bq.  > 
bq.  >

I think its going to be alright Kannan.  The patch over in hbase-1025, the 
fixup to the replay of split edits, is applying the kvs it finds in a WALEdit 
value one at a time.  That they are for different rows but of the same region, 
it should be fine I'd say.


- stack


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://review.hbase.org/r/167/#review247
-----------------------------------------------------------





> HBASE-2283 removed bulk sync optimization for multi-row puts
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-2353
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2353
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: ryan rawson
>            Assignee: Todd Lipcon
>            Priority: Blocker
>             Fix For: 0.21.0
>
>         Attachments: hbase-2353.txt, HBASE-2353_def_log_flush.patch
>
>
> previously to HBASE-2283 we used to call flush/sync once per put(Put[]) call 
> (ie: batch of commits).  Now we do for every row.  
> This makes bulk uploads slower if you are using WAL.  Is there an acceptable 
> solution to achieve both safety and performance by bulk-sync'ing puts?  Or 
> would this not work in face of atomic guarantees?
> discuss!

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

Reply via email to