[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21418) Reduce a number of reseek operations in MemstoreScanner when seek point is close to the current row.

2019-05-07 Thread HBase QA (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21418?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16835033#comment-16835033
 ] 

HBase QA commented on HBASE-21418:
--

| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue}  1m  
7s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue}  0m  
1s{color} | {color:blue} Findbugs executables are not available. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseanti {color} | {color:green}  0m  
0s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not have any anti-patterns. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green}  0m  
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green}  0m 
 0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 1 new or modified test 
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} branch-1.2 Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue}  1m 
39s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green}  7m 
24s{color} | {color:green} branch-1.2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green}  1m 
10s{color} | {color:green} branch-1.2 passed with JDK v1.8.0_212 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green}  0m 
55s{color} | {color:green} branch-1.2 passed with JDK v1.7.0_222 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green}  1m 
51s{color} | {color:green} branch-1.2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green}  2m 
40s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building our shaded 
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green}  0m 
53s{color} | {color:green} branch-1.2 passed with JDK v1.8.0_212 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green}  0m 
53s{color} | {color:green} branch-1.2 passed with JDK v1.7.0_222 {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue}  0m 
10s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green}  1m 
26s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green}  0m 
44s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.8.0_212 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green}  0m 
44s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green}  0m 
50s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.7.0_222 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green}  0m 
50s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} checkstyle {color} | {color:red}  1m 
16s{color} | {color:red} hbase-server: The patch generated 16 new + 377 
unchanged - 4 fixed = 393 total (was 381) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green}  0m 
 0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green}  2m 
23s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building our shaded 
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green}  
8m 30s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 2.4.1 
2.5.2 2.6.5 2.7.4. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green}  0m 
39s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.8.0_212 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green}  0m 
57s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.7.0_222 {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green}  2m  
2s{color} | {color:green} hbase-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green}120m  
8s{color} | {color:green} hbase-server in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green}  0m 
40s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings. 
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}159m 32s{color} | 
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || 

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21418) Reduce a number of reseek operations in MemstoreScanner when seek point is close to the current row.

2018-11-12 Thread Lars Hofhansl (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21418?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16684460#comment-16684460
 ] 

Lars Hofhansl commented on HBASE-21418:
---

I'll look this evening (bit busy throughout the day)

> Reduce a number of reseek operations in MemstoreScanner when seek point is 
> close to the current row.
> 
>
> Key: HBASE-21418
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21418
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>  Components: scan, Scanners
>Affects Versions: 1.2.5
>Reporter: Jeongdae Kim
>Assignee: Jeongdae Kim
>Priority: Minor
>  Labels: performance
> Attachments: HBASE-21418.branch-1.2.001.patch, 
> HBASE-21418.branch-1.2.001.patch, HBASE-21418.branch-1.2.002.patch
>
>
> We observed “responseTooSlow” logs for Get requests in our production 
> clusters. even some get requests were responded after 10 seconds.
> Affected get requests were done with the timerange, and target rows have many 
> columns that have some versions.
> We reproduced this issue, and found this behavior happens only when scanning 
> in the memstore. after flushing the HStore, this slow response issue for Get 
> disappeared and all same get requests are responded very quickly.
>  
> We investigated this case, and found this performance difference between 
> memstore scanner and hfile scanner is caused by the number of reseek 
> operations executed while scanning. When a store scanner needs to reseek the 
> next column, Hfile scanner wisely decide whether it have to reseek or not by 
> checking the seek point is in current block, whereas memstore scanner just do 
> reseek without decision unlike Hfile scanner. In our case, almost all columns 
> in the memstore have older timestamp than scan(get)’s timerange, and so many 
> reseek operations occur as much as about the number of columns. This results 
> in increasing the response time of Get requests sporadically.
>  
> To improve the reseek operation of the memstore scanner, i think it’s better 
> skipping than seeking when reseek requested, if seek point is quite close to 
> current cell that the scanner is pointing now.(Actually, i changed 
> MatchCode.SEEK_NEXT_COL to MatchCode.Skip in our case, and the response time 
> of Get was 6x faster than before) But we can’t decide whether seek point is 
> close to the current cell or not, because memstore scannner has no 
> information such as next block index.
>  Before HBASE-13109, Scan.HINT_LOOKAHEAD was introduced to handle like this 
> case, and it may be deprecated someday. But, i think that hint is still be 
> useful for the memstore scanner to try to skip first, before reseeking, and 
> with this option we can make reseek operations of memstore scanner smarter.
>  
> I tested this patch in our case, and got the same result as i changed 
> matchcode (mentioned above).



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)


[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21418) Reduce a number of reseek operations in MemstoreScanner when seek point is close to the current row.

2018-11-09 Thread Hadoop QA (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21418?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16681314#comment-16681314
 ] 

Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-21418:
---

| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 18m 
56s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue}  0m  
0s{color} | {color:blue} Findbugs executables are not available. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseanti {color} | {color:green}  0m  
0s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not have any anti-patterns. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green}  0m  
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green}  0m 
 0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 1 new or modified test 
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} branch-1.2 Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue}  1m 
51s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green}  8m 
44s{color} | {color:green} branch-1.2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green}  0m 
49s{color} | {color:green} branch-1.2 passed with JDK v1.8.0_192 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green}  0m 
52s{color} | {color:green} branch-1.2 passed with JDK v1.7.0_201 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green}  1m 
44s{color} | {color:green} branch-1.2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green}  2m 
21s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building our shaded 
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green}  0m 
47s{color} | {color:green} branch-1.2 passed with JDK v1.8.0_192 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green}  0m 
56s{color} | {color:green} branch-1.2 passed with JDK v1.7.0_201 {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue}  0m 
11s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green}  1m 
25s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green}  0m 
49s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.8.0_192 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green}  0m 
49s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green}  0m 
50s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.7.0_201 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green}  0m 
50s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} checkstyle {color} | {color:red}  1m 
14s{color} | {color:red} hbase-server: The patch generated 16 new + 377 
unchanged - 4 fixed = 393 total (was 381) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green}  0m 
 0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green}  2m 
15s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building our shaded 
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green}  
8m 44s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 2.4.1 
2.5.2 2.6.5 2.7.4. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green}  0m 
44s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.8.0_192 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green}  0m 
54s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.7.0_201 {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green}  1m 
59s{color} | {color:green} hbase-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red}114m 39s{color} 
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green}  0m 
27s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings. 
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}172m 11s{color} | 
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| 

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21418) Reduce a number of reseek operations in MemstoreScanner when seek point is close to the current row.

2018-11-09 Thread Jeongdae Kim (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21418?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16681082#comment-16681082
 ] 

Jeongdae Kim commented on HBASE-21418:
--

In the second patch, I tried to collect stats of columns with a bit of 
cost(stats collected only when flushing or compacting, because there are 
already a lot of comparisions in there), and use it to decide whether doing 
reseek or skip, when reseeking to next row, and use maxVersions when reseeking 
to next column as a heuristic.
Please take a look again [~lhofhansl]. 
Thanks.

> Reduce a number of reseek operations in MemstoreScanner when seek point is 
> close to the current row.
> 
>
> Key: HBASE-21418
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21418
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>  Components: scan, Scanners
>Affects Versions: 1.2.5
>Reporter: Jeongdae Kim
>Assignee: Jeongdae Kim
>Priority: Minor
>  Labels: performance
> Attachments: HBASE-21418.branch-1.2.001.patch, 
> HBASE-21418.branch-1.2.001.patch, HBASE-21418.branch-1.2.002.patch
>
>
> We observed “responseTooSlow” logs for Get requests in our production 
> clusters. even some get requests were responded after 10 seconds.
> Affected get requests were done with the timerange, and target rows have many 
> columns that have some versions.
> We reproduced this issue, and found this behavior happens only when scanning 
> in the memstore. after flushing the HStore, this slow response issue for Get 
> disappeared and all same get requests are responded very quickly.
>  
> We investigated this case, and found this performance difference between 
> memstore scanner and hfile scanner is caused by the number of reseek 
> operations executed while scanning. When a store scanner needs to reseek the 
> next column, Hfile scanner wisely decide whether it have to reseek or not by 
> checking the seek point is in current block, whereas memstore scanner just do 
> reseek without decision unlike Hfile scanner. In our case, almost all columns 
> in the memstore have older timestamp than scan(get)’s timerange, and so many 
> reseek operations occur as much as about the number of columns. This results 
> in increasing the response time of Get requests sporadically.
>  
> To improve the reseek operation of the memstore scanner, i think it’s better 
> skipping than seeking when reseek requested, if seek point is quite close to 
> current cell that the scanner is pointing now.(Actually, i changed 
> MatchCode.SEEK_NEXT_COL to MatchCode.Skip in our case, and the response time 
> of Get was 6x faster than before) But we can’t decide whether seek point is 
> close to the current cell or not, because memstore scannner has no 
> information such as next block index.
>  Before HBASE-13109, Scan.HINT_LOOKAHEAD was introduced to handle like this 
> case, and it may be deprecated someday. But, i think that hint is still be 
> useful for the memstore scanner to try to skip first, before reseeking, and 
> with this option we can make reseek operations of memstore scanner smarter.
>  
> I tested this patch in our case, and got the same result as i changed 
> matchcode (mentioned above).



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)


[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21418) Reduce a number of reseek operations in MemstoreScanner when seek point is close to the current row.

2018-11-02 Thread Jeongdae Kim (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21418?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16672938#comment-16672938
 ] 

Jeongdae Kim commented on HBASE-21418:
--

Thanks for your comments. I’ll reflect your comments to the next patch.
{quote}
Generally I am not a fan of adding more HBase and/or scan options that one has 
to know about. (which is why I had removed the LOOK_AHEAD hint that I myself 
had added a bit earlier).
{quote}
I 100% agree with you, and would like to do without options too. but, I 
couldn’t find a nice solution without extra cost.

{quote}
Why max versions here? The SEEKing can also be an issue with many columns, 
right?
 
If we can, let's find a heuristic to do this automatically (like I did with 
HFiles), so that a user won't have to hint.
{quote}
Right, I used the max versions as a heuristic in case that users pass no hint. 
I had no any idea about proper heuristic.
If we can bear small extra costs when putting cells into a memstore, What about 
maintaining some stats for columns and using it to decide whether doing seek 
operations or not. Let me try to make a patch for this.

> Reduce a number of reseek operations in MemstoreScanner when seek point is 
> close to the current row.
> 
>
> Key: HBASE-21418
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21418
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>  Components: scan, Scanners
>Affects Versions: 1.2.5
>Reporter: Jeongdae Kim
>Assignee: Jeongdae Kim
>Priority: Minor
>  Labels: performance
> Attachments: HBASE-21418.branch-1.2.001.patch, 
> HBASE-21418.branch-1.2.001.patch
>
>
> We observed “responseTooSlow” logs for Get requests in our production 
> clusters. even some get requests were responded after 10 seconds.
> Affected get requests were done with the timerange, and target rows have many 
> columns that have some versions.
> We reproduced this issue, and found this behavior happens only when scanning 
> in the memstore. after flushing the HStore, this slow response issue for Get 
> disappeared and all same get requests are responded very quickly.
>  
> We investigated this case, and found this performance difference between 
> memstore scanner and hfile scanner is caused by the number of reseek 
> operations executed while scanning. When a store scanner needs to reseek the 
> next column, Hfile scanner wisely decide whether it have to reseek or not by 
> checking the seek point is in current block, whereas memstore scanner just do 
> reseek without decision unlike Hfile scanner. In our case, almost all columns 
> in the memstore have older timestamp than scan(get)’s timerange, and so many 
> reseek operations occur as much as about the number of columns. This results 
> in increasing the response time of Get requests sporadically.
>  
> To improve the reseek operation of the memstore scanner, i think it’s better 
> skipping than seeking when reseek requested, if seek point is quite close to 
> current cell that the scanner is pointing now.(Actually, i changed 
> MatchCode.SEEK_NEXT_COL to MatchCode.Skip in our case, and the response time 
> of Get was 6x faster than before) But we can’t decide whether seek point is 
> close to the current cell or not, because memstore scannner has no 
> information such as next block index.
>  Before HBASE-13109, Scan.HINT_LOOKAHEAD was introduced to handle like this 
> case, and it may be deprecated someday. But, i think that hint is still be 
> useful for the memstore scanner to try to skip first, before reseeking, and 
> with this option we can make reseek operations of memstore scanner smarter.
>  
> I tested this patch in our case, and got the same result as i changed 
> matchcode (mentioned above).



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)


[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21418) Reduce a number of reseek operations in MemstoreScanner when seek point is close to the current row.

2018-11-02 Thread Jeongdae Kim (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21418?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16672936#comment-16672936
 ] 

Jeongdae Kim commented on HBASE-21418:
--

Thanks for the comment [~yuzhih...@gmail.com].

{quote}
What is TestLookAheadBeforeReseek supposed to show without the fix ?
{quote}
It's for showing performance difference . I'll remove the test from my patch 
and make an external link for this test.

> Reduce a number of reseek operations in MemstoreScanner when seek point is 
> close to the current row.
> 
>
> Key: HBASE-21418
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21418
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>  Components: scan, Scanners
>Affects Versions: 1.2.5
>Reporter: Jeongdae Kim
>Assignee: Jeongdae Kim
>Priority: Minor
>  Labels: performance
> Attachments: HBASE-21418.branch-1.2.001.patch, 
> HBASE-21418.branch-1.2.001.patch
>
>
> We observed “responseTooSlow” logs for Get requests in our production 
> clusters. even some get requests were responded after 10 seconds.
> Affected get requests were done with the timerange, and target rows have many 
> columns that have some versions.
> We reproduced this issue, and found this behavior happens only when scanning 
> in the memstore. after flushing the HStore, this slow response issue for Get 
> disappeared and all same get requests are responded very quickly.
>  
> We investigated this case, and found this performance difference between 
> memstore scanner and hfile scanner is caused by the number of reseek 
> operations executed while scanning. When a store scanner needs to reseek the 
> next column, Hfile scanner wisely decide whether it have to reseek or not by 
> checking the seek point is in current block, whereas memstore scanner just do 
> reseek without decision unlike Hfile scanner. In our case, almost all columns 
> in the memstore have older timestamp than scan(get)’s timerange, and so many 
> reseek operations occur as much as about the number of columns. This results 
> in increasing the response time of Get requests sporadically.
>  
> To improve the reseek operation of the memstore scanner, i think it’s better 
> skipping than seeking when reseek requested, if seek point is quite close to 
> current cell that the scanner is pointing now.(Actually, i changed 
> MatchCode.SEEK_NEXT_COL to MatchCode.Skip in our case, and the response time 
> of Get was 6x faster than before) But we can’t decide whether seek point is 
> close to the current cell or not, because memstore scannner has no 
> information such as next block index.
>  Before HBASE-13109, Scan.HINT_LOOKAHEAD was introduced to handle like this 
> case, and it may be deprecated someday. But, i think that hint is still be 
> useful for the memstore scanner to try to skip first, before reseeking, and 
> with this option we can make reseek operations of memstore scanner smarter.
>  
> I tested this patch in our case, and got the same result as i changed 
> matchcode (mentioned above).



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)


[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21418) Reduce a number of reseek operations in MemstoreScanner when seek point is close to the current row.

2018-11-01 Thread Hadoop QA (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21418?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16672052#comment-16672052
 ] 

Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-21418:
---

| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue}  0m 
36s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue}  0m  
5s{color} | {color:blue} Findbugs executables are not available. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseanti {color} | {color:green}  0m  
0s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not have any anti-patterns. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green}  0m  
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green}  0m 
 0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 2 new or modified test 
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} branch-1.2 Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue}  2m 
38s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green}  8m 
28s{color} | {color:green} branch-1.2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green}  1m 
16s{color} | {color:green} branch-1.2 passed with JDK v1.8.0_181 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green}  0m 
52s{color} | {color:green} branch-1.2 passed with JDK v1.7.0_191 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green}  1m 
44s{color} | {color:green} branch-1.2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green}  2m 
31s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building our shaded 
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green}  0m 
50s{color} | {color:green} branch-1.2 passed with JDK v1.8.0_181 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green}  0m 
56s{color} | {color:green} branch-1.2 passed with JDK v1.7.0_191 {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue}  0m 
11s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green}  1m 
30s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green}  0m 
45s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.8.0_181 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green}  0m 
45s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green}  0m 
51s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.7.0_191 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green}  0m 
51s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} checkstyle {color} | {color:red}  1m 
16s{color} | {color:red} hbase-server: The patch generated 13 new + 164 
unchanged - 1 fixed = 177 total (was 165) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green}  0m 
 0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green}  2m 
21s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building our shaded 
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green}  
8m 29s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 2.4.1 
2.5.2 2.6.5 2.7.4. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green}  0m 
39s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.8.0_181 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green}  0m 
53s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.7.0_191 {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green}  2m  
2s{color} | {color:green} hbase-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red}140m 51s{color} 
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green}  0m 
41s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings. 
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}181m 41s{color} | 
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| 

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21418) Reduce a number of reseek operations in MemstoreScanner when seek point is close to the current row.

2018-11-01 Thread Lars Hofhansl (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21418?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16671944#comment-16671944
 ] 

Lars Hofhansl commented on HBASE-21418:
---

Thanks for looking into this [~Jeongdae Kim]!

Generally I am not a fan of adding more HBase and/or scan options that one has 
to know about. (which is why I had removed the LOOK_AHEAD hint that I myself 
had added a bit earlier).

Is there no way to guess whether we should SKIP or SEEK?

Patch looks good in general. Few comments:
{code:java}
 
-  /**
-   * @deprecated without replacement
-   * This is now a no-op, SEEKs and SKIPs are optimizated 
automatically.
-   * Will be removed in 2.0+
-   */
-  @Deprecated
+
   public static final String HINT_LOOKAHEAD = "_look_ahead_";{code}
We might want to put the older (EXPERT_ONLY) comment back (or any comment 
explaining what this is doing).
{code:java}
+MemStoreScanner(long readPoint, ScanQueryMatcher scanQueryMatcher) {
+  this(readPoint);
+
+  if (scanQueryMatcher != null) {
+int lookAheadRows = 
conf.getInt("hbase.hregion.memstore.scanner.lookahead.rows", 0);
+if (scanQueryMatcher.getLookAheadBeforeReseek() <= lookAheadRows) {
+  this.lookAheadRows = scanQueryMatcher.getLookAheadBeforeReseek();
+}
+  }
+}
+{code}
Note that conf.getXXX can be slow itself. We might want to cache this value 
somewhere.
{code:java}
+
+  if (lookAheadRows > 0 && peek() != null) {
+for (int i = lookAheadRows; i > 0; --i) {
+  next();
+  if (peek() == null) {
+return false;
+  }
+  if (comparator.compare(peek(), key) >= 0) {
+return true;
+  }
+}
+  }
+{code}
This is a nit, but since the value if {{i}} is not actually used inside the 
loop, I'd prefer

{{for (int i=0; i< lookAheadRows; i++)...}}
{code:java}
+
+byte[] attr = scan.getAttribute(Scan.HINT_LOOKAHEAD);
+this.lookAheadBeforeSeek = Math.min(attr == null ? 0 : Bytes.toInt(attr), 
scanInfo.getMaxVersions());
+{code}
Why max versions here? The SEEKing can also be an issue with many columns, 
right?

 

If we can, let's find a heuristic to do this automatically (like I did with 
HFiles), so that a user won't have to hint.

 

> Reduce a number of reseek operations in MemstoreScanner when seek point is 
> close to the current row.
> 
>
> Key: HBASE-21418
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21418
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>  Components: scan, Scanners
>Affects Versions: 1.2.5
>Reporter: Jeongdae Kim
>Assignee: Jeongdae Kim
>Priority: Minor
>  Labels: performance
> Attachments: HBASE-21418.branch-1.2.001.patch, 
> HBASE-21418.branch-1.2.001.patch
>
>
> We observed “responseTooSlow” logs for Get requests in our production 
> clusters. even some get requests were responded after 10 seconds.
> Affected get requests were done with the timerange, and target rows have many 
> columns that have some versions.
> We reproduced this issue, and found this behavior happens only when scanning 
> in the memstore. after flushing the HStore, this slow response issue for Get 
> disappeared and all same get requests are responded very quickly.
>  
> We investigated this case, and found this performance difference between 
> memstore scanner and hfile scanner is caused by the number of reseek 
> operations executed while scanning. When a store scanner needs to reseek the 
> next column, Hfile scanner wisely decide whether it have to reseek or not by 
> checking the seek point is in current block, whereas memstore scanner just do 
> reseek without decision unlike Hfile scanner. In our case, almost all columns 
> in the memstore have older timestamp than scan(get)’s timerange, and so many 
> reseek operations occur as much as about the number of columns. This results 
> in increasing the response time of Get requests sporadically.
>  
> To improve the reseek operation of the memstore scanner, i think it’s better 
> skipping than seeking when reseek requested, if seek point is quite close to 
> current cell that the scanner is pointing now.(Actually, i changed 
> MatchCode.SEEK_NEXT_COL to MatchCode.Skip in our case, and the response time 
> of Get was 6x faster than before) But we can’t decide whether seek point is 
> close to the current cell or not, because memstore scannner has no 
> information such as next block index.
>  Before HBASE-13109, Scan.HINT_LOOKAHEAD was introduced to handle like this 
> case, and it may be deprecated someday. But, i think that hint is still be 
> useful for the memstore scanner to try to skip first, before reseeking, and 
> with this option we can make reseek 

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21418) Reduce a number of reseek operations in MemstoreScanner when seek point is close to the current row.

2018-11-01 Thread Lars Hofhansl (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21418?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16671928#comment-16671928
 ] 

Lars Hofhansl commented on HBASE-21418:
---

(Sorry about the re-assign, hit some keyboard combination that did that)

In the HFile case we only reseek if the seek would land us in a different HFile 
block. For the memstore we not have a similar metric. I'm suprised that reseek 
is so expensive in the memstore case.

Taking a look now.

> Reduce a number of reseek operations in MemstoreScanner when seek point is 
> close to the current row.
> 
>
> Key: HBASE-21418
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21418
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>  Components: scan, Scanners
>Affects Versions: 1.2.5
>Reporter: Jeongdae Kim
>Assignee: Jeongdae Kim
>Priority: Minor
>  Labels: performance
> Attachments: HBASE-21418.branch-1.2.001.patch, 
> HBASE-21418.branch-1.2.001.patch
>
>
> We observed “responseTooSlow” logs for Get requests in our production 
> clusters. even some get requests were responded after 10 seconds.
> Affected get requests were done with the timerange, and target rows have many 
> columns that have some versions.
> We reproduced this issue, and found this behavior happens only when scanning 
> in the memstore. after flushing the HStore, this slow response issue for Get 
> disappeared and all same get requests are responded very quickly.
>  
> We investigated this case, and found this performance difference between 
> memstore scanner and hfile scanner is caused by the number of reseek 
> operations executed while scanning. When a store scanner needs to reseek the 
> next column, Hfile scanner wisely decide whether it have to reseek or not by 
> checking the seek point is in current block, whereas memstore scanner just do 
> reseek without decision unlike Hfile scanner. In our case, almost all columns 
> in the memstore have older timestamp than scan(get)’s timerange, and so many 
> reseek operations occur as much as about the number of columns. This results 
> in increasing the response time of Get requests sporadically.
>  
> To improve the reseek operation of the memstore scanner, i think it’s better 
> skipping than seeking when reseek requested, if seek point is quite close to 
> current cell that the scanner is pointing now.(Actually, i changed 
> MatchCode.SEEK_NEXT_COL to MatchCode.Skip in our case, and the response time 
> of Get was 6x faster than before) But we can’t decide whether seek point is 
> close to the current cell or not, because memstore scannner has no 
> information such as next block index.
>  Before HBASE-13109, Scan.HINT_LOOKAHEAD was introduced to handle like this 
> case, and it may be deprecated someday. But, i think that hint is still be 
> useful for the memstore scanner to try to skip first, before reseeking, and 
> with this option we can make reseek operations of memstore scanner smarter.
>  
> I tested this patch in our case, and got the same result as i changed 
> matchcode (mentioned above).



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)


[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21418) Reduce a number of reseek operations in MemstoreScanner when seek point is close to the current row.

2018-11-01 Thread Ted Yu (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21418?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16671750#comment-16671750
 ] 

Ted Yu commented on HBASE-21418:


For the new test, I ran it without the rest of the patch:
{code}
Running org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestLookAheadBeforeReseek
Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 24.647 sec - in 
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestLookAheadBeforeReseek
{code}
What is TestLookAheadBeforeReseek supposed to show without the fix ?

> Reduce a number of reseek operations in MemstoreScanner when seek point is 
> close to the current row.
> 
>
> Key: HBASE-21418
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21418
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>  Components: scan, Scanners
>Affects Versions: 1.2.5
>Reporter: Jeongdae Kim
>Assignee: Jeongdae Kim
>Priority: Minor
>  Labels: performance
> Attachments: HBASE-21418.branch-1.2.001.patch
>
>
> We observed “responseTooSlow” logs for Get requests in our production 
> clusters. even some get requests were responded after 10 seconds.
> Affected get requests were done with the timerange, and target rows have many 
> columns that have some versions.
> We reproduced this issue, and found this behavior happens only when scanning 
> in the memstore. after flushing the HStore, this slow response issue for Get 
> disappeared and all same get requests are responded very quickly.
>  
> We investigated this case, and found this performance difference between 
> memstore scanner and hfile scanner is caused by the number of reseek 
> operations executed while scanning. When a store scanner needs to reseek the 
> next column, Hfile scanner wisely decide whether it have to reseek or not by 
> checking the seek point is in current block, whereas memstore scanner just do 
> reseek without decision unlike Hfile scanner. In our case, almost all columns 
> in the memstore have older timestamp than scan(get)’s timerange, and so many 
> reseek operations occur as much as about the number of columns. This results 
> in increasing the response time of Get requests sporadically.
>  
> To improve the reseek operation of the memstore scanner, i think it’s better 
> skipping than seeking when reseek requested, if seek point is quite close to 
> current cell that the scanner is pointing now.(Actually, i changed 
> MatchCode.SEEK_NEXT_COL to MatchCode.Skip in our case, and the response time 
> of Get was 6x faster than before) But we can’t decide whether seek point is 
> close to the current cell or not, because memstore scannner has no 
> information such as next block index.
>  Before HBASE-13109, Scan.HINT_LOOKAHEAD was introduced to handle like this 
> case, and it may be deprecated someday. But, i think that hint is still be 
> useful for the memstore scanner to try to skip first, before reseeking, and 
> with this option we can make reseek operations of memstore scanner smarter.
>  
> I tested this patch in our case, and got the same result as i changed 
> matchcode (mentioned above).



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)


[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21418) Reduce a number of reseek operations in MemstoreScanner when seek point is close to the current row.

2018-11-01 Thread Hadoop QA (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21418?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16671453#comment-16671453
 ] 

Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-21418:
---

| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 17m 
44s{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Prechecks {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} findbugs {color} | {color:blue}  0m  
0s{color} | {color:blue} Findbugs executables are not available. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseanti {color} | {color:green}  0m  
0s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not have any anti-patterns. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green}  0m  
0s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} test4tests {color} | {color:green}  0m 
 0s{color} | {color:green} The patch appears to include 2 new or modified test 
files. {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} branch-1.2 Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue}  1m 
40s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for branch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green}  7m 
51s{color} | {color:green} branch-1.2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green}  0m 
42s{color} | {color:green} branch-1.2 passed with JDK v1.8.0_181 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green}  0m 
48s{color} | {color:green} branch-1.2 passed with JDK v1.7.0_191 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green}  1m 
37s{color} | {color:green} branch-1.2 passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green}  2m 
13s{color} | {color:green} branch has no errors when building our shaded 
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green}  0m 
38s{color} | {color:green} branch-1.2 passed with JDK v1.8.0_181 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green}  0m 
51s{color} | {color:green} branch-1.2 passed with JDK v1.7.0_191 {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Patch Compile Tests {color} ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} mvndep {color} | {color:blue}  0m 
12s{color} | {color:blue} Maven dependency ordering for patch {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green}  1m 
29s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green}  0m 
44s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.8.0_181 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green}  0m 
44s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green}  0m 
50s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.7.0_191 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green}  0m 
50s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} checkstyle {color} | {color:red}  1m  
9s{color} | {color:red} hbase-server: The patch generated 13 new + 164 
unchanged - 1 fixed = 177 total (was 165) {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green}  0m 
 0s{color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} shadedjars {color} | {color:green}  2m 
13s{color} | {color:green} patch has no errors when building our shaded 
downstream artifacts. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green}  
8m 15s{color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop 2.4.1 
2.5.2 2.6.5 2.7.4. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green}  0m 
36s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.8.0_181 {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green}  0m 
50s{color} | {color:green} the patch passed with JDK v1.7.0_191 {color} |
|| || || || {color:brown} Other Tests {color} ||
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} unit {color} | {color:green}  1m 
55s{color} | {color:green} hbase-client in the patch passed. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 99m 50s{color} 
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green}  0m 
28s{color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings. 
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black}153m 32s{color} | 
{color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| 

[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-21418) Reduce a number of reseek operations in MemstoreScanner when seek point is close to the current row.

2018-11-01 Thread Jeongdae Kim (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21418?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16671239#comment-16671239
 ] 

Jeongdae Kim commented on HBASE-21418:
--

[~lhofhansl] Could you take a look?

> Reduce a number of reseek operations in MemstoreScanner when seek point is 
> close to the current row.
> 
>
> Key: HBASE-21418
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21418
> Project: HBase
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>  Components: scan, Scanners
>Affects Versions: 1.2.5
>Reporter: Jeongdae Kim
>Assignee: Jeongdae Kim
>Priority: Minor
>  Labels: performance
> Attachments: HBASE-21418.branch-1.2.001.patch
>
>
> We observed “responseTooSlow” logs for Get requests in our production 
> clusters. even some get requests were responded after 10 seconds.
> Affected get requests were done with the timerange, and target rows have many 
> columns that have some versions.
> We reproduced this issue, and found this behavior happens only when scanning 
> in the memstore. after flushing the HStore, this slow response issue for Get 
> disappeared and all same get requests are responded very quickly.
>  
> We investigated this case, and found this performance difference between 
> memstore scanner and hfile scanner is caused by the number of reseek 
> operations executed while scanning. When a store scanner needs to reseek the 
> next column, Hfile scanner wisely decide whether it have to reseek or not by 
> checking the seek point is in current block, whereas memstore scanner just do 
> reseek without decision unlike Hfile scanner. In our case, almost all columns 
> in the memstore have older timestamp than scan(get)’s timerange, and so many 
> reseek operations occur as much as about the number of columns. This results 
> in increasing the response time of Get requests sporadically.
>  
> To improve the reseek operation of the memstore scanner, i think it’s better 
> skipping than seeking when reseek requested, if seek point is quite close to 
> current cell that the scanner is pointing now.(Actually, i changed 
> MatchCode.SEEK_NEXT_COL to MatchCode.Skip in our case, and the response time 
> of Get was 6x faster than before) But we can’t decide whether seek point is 
> close to the current cell or not, because memstore scannner has no 
> information such as next block index.
>  Before HBASE-13109, Scan.HINT_LOOKAHEAD was introduced to handle like this 
> case, and it may be deprecated someday. But, i think that hint is still be 
> useful for the memstore scanner to try to skip first, before reseeking, and 
> with this option we can make reseek operations of memstore scanner smarter.
>  
> I tested this patch in our case, and got the same result as i changed 
> matchcode (mentioned above).



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)