[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12148?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14160601#comment-14160601
]
stack commented on HBASE-12148:
-------------------------------
bq. Your reasoning is that minimumTimestamp will only get smaller and
maximumTimestamp only bigger...
Yes.
bq. I think you cannot get around declaring minimumTimestamp and
maximumTimestamp volatile, that will add some of the overhead back in.
Let me just add it back if any question at all around correctness (reading, JVM
does not have to atomic access on 64bit though in practice seems to work). I
did not test in context but using atomic long its about 10-15% slower to
complete. Hopefully this not enough to make it a hotspot. Can't check just
now.
> Remove TimeRangeTracker as point of contention when many threads writing a
> Store
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-12148
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12148
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Performance
> Affects Versions: 2.0.0, 0.99.1
> Reporter: stack
> Assignee: stack
> Fix For: 2.0.0, 0.98.7, 0.99.1
>
> Attachments: 12148.txt, 12148.txt, 12148v2.txt, 12148v2.txt, Screen
> Shot 2014-10-01 at 3.39.46 PM.png, Screen Shot 2014-10-01 at 3.41.07 PM.png
>
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
