[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2915?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14033171#comment-14033171
]
Josh Elser commented on ACCUMULO-2915:
--------------------------------------
bq. Keith Turner serves me right for not digging deeper in there.
Not the first time I've been Turner'ed either. So really this just boils down
to creating an extra instance of Mutation which still could be improved, but
likely at much less of a gain.
> Avoid copying all Mutations when using a TabletServerBatchWriter
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ACCUMULO-2915
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2915
> Project: Accumulo
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: client
> Affects Versions: 1.5.0, 1.5.1, 1.6.0, 1.6.1, 1.7.0
> Reporter: William Slacum
> Fix For: 1.5.2, 1.6.1, 1.7.0
>
>
> Currently in the TabletServerBatchWriter, the following behavior is exhibited:
> {code}
> // create a copy of mutation so that after this method returns the user
> // is free to reuse the mutation object, like calling readFields... this
> // is important for the case where a mutation is passed from map to reduce
> // to batch writer... the map reduce code will keep passing the same
> mutation
> // object into the reduce method
> m = new Mutation(m);
>
> totalMemUsed += m.estimatedMemoryUsed();
> mutations.addMutation(table, m);
> totalAdded++;
> {code}
> This means all data is copied twice when writing. The logic for doing this is
> a bit dubious, since not all clients are going to be subject to MapReduce's
> use of references.
> It'd be good if we provided users with a way of signaling that there's no
> need to copy the mutation payload. [~elserj] suggested creating something
> akin to an {{ImmutableMutation}}, which help avoid some of the fears the
> batchwriter attempts to defend against.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
