[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-4433?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13589224#comment-13589224
]
Lars Hofhansl commented on HBASE-4433:
--------------------------------------
Interesting! This is almost impossible to get right automatically I think. Even
with MAX_VERSIONS=1 there might be a bunch of version, where INCLUDE_AND_SEEK_*
is better.
Could use the size of the KV as a guidepost. If MAX_VERSIONS * size > than the
HFile blocksize (64k by default) we could do INCLUDE_AND_SEEK, other do INCLUDE
following by SEEK (if needed).
(Just made this up, but we can probably use some heuristic like this)
> avoid extra next (potentially a seek) if done with column/row
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-4433
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-4433
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Kannan Muthukkaruppan
> Assignee: Kannan Muthukkaruppan
> Fix For: 0.92.0
>
>
> [Noticed this in 89, but quite likely true of trunk as well.]
> When we are done with the requested column(s) the code still does an extra
> next() call before it realizes that it is actually done. This extra next()
> call could potentially result in an unnecessary extra block load. This is
> likely to be especially bad for CFs where the KVs are large blobs where each
> KV may be occupying a block of its own. So the next() can often load a new
> unrelated block unnecessarily.
> --
> For the simple case of reading say the top-most column in a row in a single
> file, where each column (KV) was say a block of its own-- it seems that we
> are reading 3 blocks, instead of 1 block!
> I am working on a simple patch and with that the number of seeks is down to
> 2.
> [There is still an extra seek left. I think there were two levels of
> extra/unnecessary next() we were doing without actually confirming that the
> next was needed. One at the StoreScanner/ScanQueryMatcher level which this
> diff avoids. I think the other is at hfs.next() (at the storefile scanner
> level) that's happening whenever a HFile scanner servers out a data-- and
> perhaps that's the additional seek that we need to avoid. But I want to
> tackle this optimization first as the two issues seem unrelated.]
> --
> The basic idea of the patch I am working on/testing is as follows. The
> ExplicitColumnTracker currently returns "INCLUDE" to the ScanQueryMatcher if
> the KV needs to be included and then if done, only in the the next call it
> returns the appropriate SEEK_NEXT_COL or SEEK_NEXT_ROW hint. For the cases
> when ExplicitColumnTracker knows it is done with a particular column/row, the
> patch attempts to combine the INCLUDE code and done hint into a single match
> code-- INCLUDE_AND_SEEK_NEXT_COL and INCLUDE_AND_SEEK_NEXT_ROW.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
