[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12728?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14267302#comment-14267302
]
stack commented on HBASE-12728:
-------------------------------
bq. Why? [The flush on BufferedTable is a noop, right?]
Because in the proposal, the BufferedTable is not the owner of the put buffer;
it is sharing it with other BufferedTable instances.
bq. I was thinking BufferedTable would be essentially what HTable is now.
We could do that. Its where we started. Only the BufferedTable would have to be
threadsafe (which HTable is not) or we'd need to add back a pool that gave out
these BufferedTables. BufferedTable would not be lightweight; each would be
carrying a fat buffer at least.
The latest suggestion has us taking buffering out of Table and explicitly
managing it separately. Cleaner and clearer as to what is going on.
bq. BufferedConnection would just return BufferedTables as opposed to HTables.
If multiple threads, they'd all share the one, thread-safe instance? Could
only flush the buffer when size/time limits broached or when
BufferedConnection#close was called (or add BufferedConnection#flush); calls to
BufferedTable#flush would have to be ignored. What happens when a thread calls
#close on a shared instance? We don't want one behavior if a Table instance
(i.e. create and close when done) and another when BufferedTable (don't close
it!)
> 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)
