Yep: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KUDU-1903
- Dan On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
