[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-4218?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13179036#comment-13179036
]
Mikhail Bautin commented on HBASE-4218:
---------------------------------------
@Matt, Ted: the problem with the previous settings was that they were too
flexible, and allowed for different encodings in cache and in memory. We
definitely don't want to re-encode a block using a different encoding algorithm
after loading it from disk. After a discussion with Kannan we decided that the
whole benefit of delta encoding is in encoded scanners and allowing to put more
data into cache. If we want to use a compression algorithm on disk but not in
cache, it is possible to implement that using the existing compression
framework. Furthermore, Jacek found in his experiments that encoded scanners
were actually faster than scanners on decoded blocks. Please let me know what
use case you have in mind that would require storing decoded blocks in cache
and would not allow for efficient scanning over encoded blocks.
> Data Block Encoding of KeyValues (aka delta encoding / prefix compression)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-4218
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-4218
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: io
> Affects Versions: 0.94.0
> Reporter: Jacek Migdal
> Assignee: Mikhail Bautin
> Labels: compression
> Fix For: 0.94.0
>
> Attachments: 0001-Delta-encoding-fixed-encoded-scanners.patch,
> 0001-Delta-encoding.patch, 4218-v16.txt, D447.1.patch, D447.10.patch,
> D447.11.patch, D447.12.patch, D447.13.patch, D447.14.patch, D447.15.patch,
> D447.16.patch, D447.17.patch, D447.2.patch, D447.3.patch, D447.4.patch,
> D447.5.patch, D447.6.patch, D447.7.patch, D447.8.patch, D447.9.patch,
> Data-block-encoding-2011-12-23.patch,
> Delta-encoding.patch-2011-12-22_11_52_07.patch,
> Delta_encoding_with_memstore_TS.patch, open-source.diff
>
>
> A compression for keys. Keys are sorted in HFile and they are usually very
> similar. Because of that, it is possible to design better compression than
> general purpose algorithms,
> It is an additional step designed to be used in memory. It aims to save
> memory in cache as well as speeding seeks within HFileBlocks. It should
> improve performance a lot, if key lengths are larger than value lengths. For
> example, it makes a lot of sense to use it when value is a counter.
> Initial tests on real data (key length = ~ 90 bytes , value length = 8 bytes)
> shows that I could achieve decent level of compression:
> key compression ratio: 92%
> total compression ratio: 85%
> LZO on the same data: 85%
> LZO after delta encoding: 91%
> While having much better performance (20-80% faster decompression ratio than
> LZO). Moreover, it should allow far more efficient seeking which should
> improve performance a bit.
> It seems that a simple compression algorithms are good enough. Most of the
> savings are due to prefix compression, int128 encoding, timestamp diffs and
> bitfields to avoid duplication. That way, comparisons of compressed data can
> be much faster than a byte comparator (thanks to prefix compression and
> bitfields).
> In order to implement it in HBase two important changes in design will be
> needed:
> -solidify interface to HFileBlock / HFileReader Scanner to provide seeking
> and iterating; access to uncompressed buffer in HFileBlock will have bad
> performance
> -extend comparators to support comparison assuming that N first bytes are
> equal (or some fields are equal)
> Link to a discussion about something similar:
> http://search-hadoop.com/m/5aqGXJEnaD1/hbase+windows&subj=Re+prefix+compression
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
