[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9969?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13824125#comment-13824125
]
Lars Hofhansl commented on HBASE-9969:
--------------------------------------
As for the discussion about optimizing it... I think we need to:
# make sure there is no scenario where this is significantly slower
# all corner cases were explored for correctness
This literally sits at the core of HBase, and we'd better be a 100% sure it's
OK.
That said, it looks good to me (haven't studied the details of the LoserTree
class, though).
> Improve KeyValueHeap using loser tree
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-9969
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9969
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Performance, regionserver
> Reporter: Chao Shi
> Assignee: Chao Shi
> Fix For: 0.98.0, 0.96.1, 0.94.15
>
> Attachments: 9969-0.94.txt, hbase-9969-v2.patch, hbase-9969.patch,
> hbase-9969.patch, kvheap-benchmark.png, kvheap-benchmark.txt
>
>
> LoserTree is the better data structure than binary heap. It saves half of the
> comparisons on each next(), though the time complexity is on O(logN).
> Currently A scan or get will go through two KeyValueHeaps, one is merging KVs
> read from multiple HFiles in a single store, the other is merging results
> from multiple stores. This patch should improve the both cases whenever CPU
> is the bottleneck (e.g. scan with filter over cached blocks, HBASE-9811).
> All of the optimization work is done in KeyValueHeap and does not change its
> public interfaces. The new code looks more cleaner and simpler to understand.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)
