[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12728?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14277859#comment-14277859
]
Solomon Duskis commented on HBASE-12728:
----------------------------------------
After this last exchange I've thoroughly convinced myself that HTable is mostly
fine as it is. The problem that the original poster presented is a case where
I think that HBase ought not provide a coded solution, since the use cases
require a lot of knowledge about the nuances of the situation. The problem
[~abeppu] is trying to solve for is for a long lived service that wants to use
asynchronous puts across a lot of requests. The assumption is that Tables are
by short lived objects. From what I see, the only limitation of
short-lived-ness is conceptual. There's nothing in the HTable codebase that I
see any reason to not keep it around for the lifecycle of the service. Here's
my preferred implementation:
{code}
public class MyService {
private HTableInterface table;
private ExecutorService executor;
...
public void initialize(..) {
table = storedConnection.getTable(tableName);
Runnable r = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
synchronize(table) {
try {
table.flushCommits();
} ...
}
}
}
// somehow use the executor to invoke r every 100 ms. or so
}
private void writeBuffered(Put somePut) throws IOException {
synchronize(table) {
table.put(somePut);
}
}
public void close() throws IOException {
table.close()
}
}
{code}
I've come to the conclusion that the problem is in the documentation, not the
implementation. All of my work in the patch should be thrown away and I'll
consider it a learning experience.
It could be that my analysis about short-lived-ness is way off base, but if it
is, then my implementation of BufferedMutator will have the same problems as
HTable.
There still is the problem of exception handling, and an async exception
listener would be a good idea, but one for a different JIRA ticket.
I feel like I could have missed something critical in my analysis... Thoughts
on this?
> 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
>
> Attachments: 12728.connection-owns-buffers.example.branch-1.0.patch,
> HBASE-12728-2.patch, HBASE-12728.patch, bulk-mutator.patch
>
>
> 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)
