[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12728?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14267096#comment-14267096
]
stack commented on HBASE-12728:
-------------------------------
Feedback.
On AsyncPutter, will we ever want to buffer Increments or Appends or Deletes
(Increments we might want to aggregate client-side but that is something
different from AsyncPutter i suppose); if so, AsyncMutator instead? (An uglier
name!).
Async is probably good to have in the name since it conveys detachment between
invocation and when the op actually happens but on other hand, we could just
call it Buffer<Put> or recast the PutBuffer you have above and do away with an
extra moving part?
Ditto, do we even need to expose BufferedTable? Just add to Connection a
#getTable(TableName, PutBuffer) that takes a PutBuffer -- the implementation
behind the scenes would use the passed PutBuffer. I suppose this would mean
you'd have to ask Connection for a PutBuffer instance
(Connection#getPutBuffer(maxsize, executor) or maybe this is just where your
BufferedConnection comes in; it adds these methods.
Having the PutBuffer detached from Table is clean but what is to prevent me
adding a Put for TableA to TableB's PutBuffer? There'd be no protection
against this? (That'd probably be fine)
The flush on BufferedTable is a noop, right?
BufferedTable shouldn't have a close if its not going to do anything?
The ExceptionListener seems good but should it supply more info than just the
exception? For example, where we are in the processing of the buffer -- what
edits have succeeded and which have failed (or would that just be TMI?)
Good stuff [~carterpage]
> buffered writes substantially less useful after removal of HTablePool
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-12728
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12728
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: hbase
> Affects Versions: 0.98.0
> Reporter: Aaron Beppu
> Assignee: Solomon Duskis
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 1.0.0, 2.0.0, 1.1.0
>
>
> In previous versions of HBase, when use of HTablePool was encouraged, HTable
> instances were long-lived in that pool, and for that reason, if autoFlush was
> set to false, the table instance could accumulate a full buffer of writes
> before a flush was triggered. Writes from the client to the cluster could
> then be substantially larger and less frequent than without buffering.
> However, when HTablePool was deprecated, the primary justification seems to
> have been that creating HTable instances is cheap, so long as the connection
> and executor service being passed to it are pre-provided. A use pattern was
> encouraged where users should create a new HTable instance for every
> operation, using an existing connection and executor service, and then close
> the table. In this pattern, buffered writes are substantially less useful;
> writes are as small and as frequent as they would have been with
> autoflush=true, except the synchronous write is moved from the operation
> itself to the table close call which immediately follows.
> More concretely :
> ```
> // Given these two helpers ...
> private HTableInterface getAutoFlushTable(String tableName) throws
> IOException {
> // (autoflush is true by default)
> return storedConnection.getTable(tableName, executorService);
> }
> private HTableInterface getBufferedTable(String tableName) throws IOException
> {
> HTableInterface table = getAutoFlushTable(tableName);
> table.setAutoFlush(false);
> return table;
> }
> // it's my contention that these two methods would behave almost identically,
> // except the first will hit a synchronous flush during the put call,
> and the second will
> // flush during the (hidden) close call on table.
> private void writeAutoFlushed(Put somePut) throws IOException {
> try (HTableInterface table = getAutoFlushTable(tableName)) {
> table.put(somePut); // will do synchronous flush
> }
> }
> private void writeBuffered(Put somePut) throws IOException {
> try (HTableInterface table = getBufferedTable(tableName)) {
> table.put(somePut);
> } // auto-close will trigger synchronous flush
> }
> ```
> For buffered writes to actually provide a performance benefit to users, one
> of two things must happen:
> - The writeBuffer itself shouldn't live, flush and die with the lifecycle of
> it's HTableInstance. If the writeBuffer were managed elsewhere and had a long
> lifespan, this could cease to be an issue. However, if the same writeBuffer
> is appended to by multiple tables, then some additional concurrency control
> will be needed around it.
> - Alternatively, there should be some pattern for having long-lived HTable
> instances. However, since HTable is not thread-safe, we'd need multiple
> instances, and a mechanism for leasing them out safely -- which sure sounds a
> lot like the old HTablePool to me.
> See discussion on mailing list here :
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hbase-user/201412.mbox/%3CCAPdJLkEzmUQZ_kvD%3D8mrxi4V%3DhCmUp3g9MUZsddD%2Bmon%2BAvNtg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
