Hey Dan, Mind filing a critical or blocker JIRA against 1.3 so we can track remaining things that should go into the branch before release?
-Todd On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Dan Burkert <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Paul, > > Thanks for checking that out and following up. I'm going to try and root > cause this today so that we have plenty of time to get a fix in to 1.3 if > it requires one. Thanks again for the report. In the meantime, let me > know if the alter table workaround is not enough for you to make progress > with Kudu. > > -Dan > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 3:02 PM Paul Brannan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > One side-effect of neglecting to drop the unbounded range partition: I get > a stack trace when I try to scan: > > F0227 15:00:12.696625 76369 map-util.h:112] Check failed: it != > collection.end() Map key not found: ▒3 > *** Check failure stack trace: *** > @ 0x7fca2a5506ad (unknown) > @ 0x7fca2a55271c (unknown) > @ 0x7fca2a550209 (unknown) > @ 0x7fca2a5530af (unknown) > @ 0x7fca2a3de482 (unknown) > @ 0x7fca2a3dae70 (unknown) > @ 0x7fca2a3dc100 (unknown) > @ 0x7fca2a429a44 (unknown) > @ 0x7fca2a42ab47 (unknown) > @ 0x7fca2a42e94c (unknown) > @ 0x7fca2a43081c (unknown) > @ 0x7fca2a5a9a56 (unknown) > @ 0x7fca2a5aa948 (unknown) > @ 0x7fca2a41ac8b (unknown) > @ 0x7fca2a4dcfc8 (unknown) > @ 0x7fca290d6182 start_thread > @ 0x7fca2980947d clone > @ (nil) (unknown) > > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Paul Brannan <[email protected] > > wrote: > > Is that 4TB per tablet server, regardless of how many tablets it has? > > If I have 128GB of data per day, then each tablet server hits the > recommended limit after about a month. To store 10 years of data, I would > need 120 tablet servers to avoid going over the limit. Is that the best > solution or is there another alternative? > > How many cores are recommended per tablet server? If I typically only > scan one day of data at time, could a single core service multiple tablet > servers? > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Paul Brannan < > [email protected]> wrote: > > The test doesn't exactly reproduce what I did in my sample program. > > I'm able to successfully drop the unbounded partition in both cases > (calling set_range_partition_columns only vs calling > set_range_partition_columns+add_hash_partitions). However, if I omit the > call to DropRangePartition, then AddRangePartition succeeds in the first > case and fails in the second case. I expect it to succeed in both cases or > fail in both cases. > > I've attached a simple program which demonstrates. > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Dan Burkert <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > I can't reproduce the behavior you are describing, I always get a single > unbounded range partition when creating the table without specifying range > bounds or splits (regardless of hash partitioning). I searched and couldn't > find a unit test for this behavior, so I wrote one - you might compare your > code against my test. https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/6153/ > > Thanks, > Dan > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Paul Brannan <[email protected] > > wrote: > > I can verify that dropping the unbounded range partition allows me to > later add bounded partitions. > > If I only have range partitioning (by commenting out the call to > add_hash_partitions), adding a bounded partition succeeds, regardless of > whether I first drop the unbounded partition. This seems surprising; why > the difference? > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Dan Burkert <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > I think the issue you are running into is that if you don't add a range > partition explicitly during table creation (by calling add_range_partition > or inserting a split with add_range_partition_split), Kudu will default to > creating 1 unbounded range partition. So your two options are to add the > range partition during table creation time, or if you only know that > partition you want at a later time, you can drop the existing partition > (alterer->DropRangePartition with two empty rows), then add the range > partition. Note that dropping the range partition will effectively > truncate the table. This can be done with the same alterer in a single > transaction. If you want to see a bunch of examples, you can check out > this unit test: https://github.com/apache/kudu/blob/master/src/ > kudu/integration-tests/alter_table-test.cc#L1106. > > - Dan > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Paul Brannan < > [email protected]> wrote: > > I'm trying to create a table with one-column range-partitioned and another > column hash-partitioned. Documentation for add_hash_partitions and > set_range_partition_columns suggest this should be possible ("Tables must > be created with either range, hash, or range and hash partitioning"). > > I have a schema with three INT64 columns ("time", "key", and "value"). > When I create the table, I set up the partitioning: > > (*table_creator) > .table_name("test_table") > .schema(&schema) > .add_hash_partitions({"key"}, 2) > .set_range_partition_columns({"time"}) > .num_replicas(1) > .Create() > > I later try to add a partition: > > auto timesplit(KuduSchema & schema, std::int64_t t) { > auto split = schema.NewRow(); > check_ok(split->SetInt64("time", t)); > return split; > } > > alterer->AddRangePartition( > timesplit(schema, date_start), > timesplit(schema, next_date_start)); > > check_ok(alterer->Alter()); > > But I get an error "Invalid argument: New range partition conflicts with > existing range partition". > > How are hash and range partitioning intended to be mixed? > > > > > > > > -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera
