[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9969?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13825471#comment-13825471
]
Jonathan Hsieh commented on HBASE-9969:
---------------------------------------
bq. I have not found a scenario, *yet*, where this is slower. Seems generally
safe to pull into all branches.
Emphasis mine.
I'm a bit concerned with such a fundamental change going in without a way of
"going back" in the case we find a slower case, especially in the stable
branch. Wouldn't it be prudent if this were to make it into 0.94 make it an
option?
> 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-v3.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)
