[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14283?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14908994#comment-14908994
]
Matteo Bertozzi commented on HBASE-14283:
-----------------------------------------
v4 probably is a bad name..
this is more a v2/3.x since (the original idea) was just a fix in the format to
solve a bug.
not a complete format redesign. everything should be the same aside adding one
field on the level block.
Ben was also suggesting a double rolling upgrade to migrate to that, more or
less like we did for 3.
I'm ok to have it only in 2.0, but to me this can also be done in a 1.3. just
switch the name from v4 to 3.x :)
if we want to extend the scope of redesigning the file-format, that will be
another topic.
I know that [~lhofhansl], during hbasecon, was suggesting format changes to
group by qualifiers and similar.
but that will not be just related to fixing this bug and it will probably be in
2.0 only I guess.
> Reverse scan doesn’t work with HFile inline index/bloom blocks
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-14283
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14283
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Ben Lau
> Assignee: Ben Lau
> Attachments: HBASE-14283-v2.patch, HBASE-14283.patch,
> hfile-seek-before.patch
>
>
> Reverse scans do not work if an HFile contains inline bloom blocks or leaf
> level index blocks. The reason is because the seekBefore() call calculates
> the previous data block’s size by assuming data blocks are contiguous which
> is not the case in HFile V2 and beyond.
> Attached is a first cut patch (targeting
> bcef28eefaf192b0ad48c8011f98b8e944340da5 on trunk) which includes:
> (1) a unit test which exposes the bug and demonstrates failures for both
> inline bloom blocks and inline index blocks
> (2) a proposed fix for inline index blocks that does not require a new HFile
> version change, but is only performant for 1 and 2-level indexes and not 3+.
> 3+ requires an HFile format update for optimal performance.
> This patch does not fix the bloom filter blocks bug. But the fix should be
> similar to the case of inline index blocks. The reason I haven’t made the
> change yet is I want to confirm that you guys would be fine with me revising
> the HFile.Reader interface.
> Specifically, these 2 functions (getGeneralBloomFilterMetadata and
> getDeleteBloomFilterMetadata) need to return the BloomFilter. Right now the
> HFileReader class doesn’t have a reference to the bloom filters (and hence
> their indices) and only constructs the IO streams and hence has no way to
> know where the bloom blocks are in the HFile. It seems that the HFile.Reader
> bloom method comments state that they “know nothing about how that metadata
> is structured” but I do not know if that is a requirement of the abstraction
> (why?) or just an incidental current property.
> We would like to do 3 things with community approval:
> (1) Update the HFile.Reader interface and implementation to contain and
> return BloomFilters directly rather than unstructured IO streams
> (2) Merge the fixes for index blocks and bloom blocks into open source
> (3) Create a new Jira ticket for open source HBase to add a ‘prevBlockSize’
> field in the block header in the next HFile version, so that seekBefore()
> calls can not only be correct but performant in all cases.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
