[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-5795?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17066338#comment-17066338
]
Hadoop QA commented on PHOENIX-5795:
------------------------------------
{color:red}-1 overall{color}. Here are the results of testing the latest
attachment
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12997608/PHOENIX-5795.4.x-HBase-1.5.001.patch
against 4.x-HBase-1.5 branch at commit
457ae44cf09231fd0122b3932623d82c3a8b932a.
ATTACHMENT ID: 12997608
{color:green}+1 @author{color}. The patch does not contain any @author
tags.
{color:green}+1 tests included{color}. The patch appears to include 25 new
or modified tests.
{color:green}+1 javac{color}. The applied patch does not increase the
total number of javac compiler warnings.
{color:green}+1 release audit{color}. The applied patch does not increase
the total number of release audit warnings.
{color:red}-1 lineLengths{color}. The patch introduces the following lines
longer than 100:
+ private long verifyIndexTable(String tableName, String indexName,
Connection conn) throws Exception {
+ // Now we rebuild the entire index table and expect that it is still
good after the full rebuild
+ long actualRowCountAfterCompaction =
IndexScrutiny.scrutinizeIndex(conn, tableName, indexName);
+ + "(k1 INTEGER NOT NULL, k2 INTEGER NOT NULL, a.v1 INTEGER,
b.v2 INTEGER, c.v3 INTEGER, d.v4 INTEGER," +
+ conn.createStatement().execute("CREATE INDEX " + indexName + " ON " +
tableName + "(v1) INCLUDE(v2, v3)");
+ + (RAND.nextBoolean() ? null :
(RAND.nextInt() % nIndexValues)) + ", "
+ + "(k1 INTEGER NOT NULL, k2 INTEGER NOT NULL, a.v1 INTEGER,
b.v2 INTEGER, c.v3 INTEGER, d.v4 INTEGER," +
+ conn.createStatement().execute("CREATE INDEX " + indexName + " ON " +
tableName + "(v1) INCLUDE(v2, v3)");
+ "UPSERT INTO " + tableName + " (k1,
k2, b.v2, c.v3, d.v4) VALUES ("
+ + (RAND.nextBoolean() ? null :
RAND.nextInt()) + ", "
{color:red}-1 core tests{color}. The patch failed these unit tests:
./phoenix-core/target/failsafe-reports/TEST-org.apache.phoenix.end2end.index.MutableIndexIT
./phoenix-core/target/failsafe-reports/TEST-org.apache.phoenix.end2end.OnDuplicateKeyIT
Test results:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-PHOENIX-Build/3647//testReport/
Console output:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-PHOENIX-Build/3647//console
This message is automatically generated.
> Supporting selective queries for index rows updated concurrently
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: PHOENIX-5795
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-5795
> Project: Phoenix
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Kadir OZDEMIR
> Assignee: Kadir OZDEMIR
> Priority: Critical
> Attachments: PHOENIX-5795.4.x-HBase-1.5.001.patch
>
> Time Spent: 1h 40m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> From the consistent indexing design (PHOENIX-5156) perspective, two or more
> pending updates from different batches on the same data row are concurrent if
> and only if for all of these updates the data table row state is read from
> HBase under the row lock and for none of them the row lock has been acquired
> the second time for updating the data table. In other words, all of them are
> in the first update phase concurrently. For concurrent updates, the first two
> update phases are done but the last update phase is skipped. This means the
> data table row will be updated by these updates but the corresponding index
> table rows will be left with the unverified status. Then, the read repair
> process will repair these unverified index rows during scans.
> In addition to leaving index rows unverified, the concurrent updates may
> generate index row with incorrect row keys. For example, consider that an
> application issues the verify first two upserts on the same row concurrently
> and the second update does not include one or more of the indexed columns.
> When these updates arrive concurrently to IndexRegionObserver, the existing
> row state would be null for both of these updates. This mean the index
> updates will be generated solely from the pending updates. The partial upsert
> with missing indexed columns will generate an index row by assuming missing
> indexed columns have null value, and this assumption may not true as the
> other concurrent upsert may have non-null values for indexed columns. After
> issuing the concurrent update, if the application attempts to read back the
> row using a selective query on the index table and this selective query maps
> to an HBase scan that does not scan these unverified rows due to incorrect
> row keys on these rows, the application will not get the row content back
> correctly.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
