On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Jordan Birdsell < jordan.birdsell.k...@statefarm.com> wrote:
> Yes, this is exactly what we need to do. Not immediately is ok for our > current requirements, I’d say within a day would be ideal. > > Even within a day can be tricky for this kind of system if you have a fairly uniform random delete workload. That would imply that you're rewriting _all_ of your data every day, which uses a fair amount of IO. Are deletes extremely rare for your use case? Is it the entire row of data that has to be deleted or would it be sufficient to "X out" some particularly sensitive column? -Todd > > > *From:* Jean-Daniel Cryans [mailto:jdcry...@apache.org] > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 26, 2016 11:15 AM > > *To:* user@kudu.incubator.apache.org > *Subject:* Re: Weekly update 4/25 > > > > Oh I see so this is in order to comply with asks such as "much sure that > data for some user/customer is 100% deleted"? We'll still have the problem > where we don't want to rewrite all the base data files (GBs/TBs) to clean > up KBs of data, although since a single row is always only part of one row > set, it means it's at most 64MB that you'd be rewriting. > > > > BTW is it ok if the data isn't immediately deleted? How long is it > acceptable to wait for before it happens? > > > > J-D > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Jordan Birdsell < > jordan.birdsell.k...@statefarm.com> wrote: > > Correct. As for the “latest version”, if a row is deleted in the latest > version then removing the old versions where it existed is exactly what > we’re looking to do. Basically, we need a way to physically get rid of > select rows (or data within a column for that matter) and all versions of > that row or column data. > > > > *From:* Jean-Daniel Cryans [mailto:jdcry...@apache.org] > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 26, 2016 10:56 AM > *To:* user@kudu.incubator.apache.org > *Subject:* Re: Weekly update 4/25 > > > > Hi Jordan, > > > > In other words, you'd like to tag specific rows to be excluded from the > default data history retention? > > > > Also, keep in mind that this improvement is about removing old versions of > the data, it will not delete the latest version. If you are used to HBase, > it's like specifying some TTL plus MIN_VERSIONS=1 so it doesn't completely > age out a row. > > > > Hope this helps, > > > > J-D > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Jordan Birdsell < > jordan.birdsell.k...@statefarm.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Regarding row GC, I see in the design document that the tablet history > max age will be set at the table level, would it be possible to make this > something that can be overridden for specific transactions? We have some > use cases that would require accelerated removal of data from disk and > other use cases that would not have the same requirement. Unfortunately, > these different use cases apply, often times, to the same tables. > > > > Thanks, > > Jordan Birdsell > > > > *From:* Todd Lipcon [mailto:t...@apache.org] > *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2016 1:54 PM > *To:* d...@kudu.incubator.apache.org; user@kudu.incubator.apache.org > *Subject:* Weekly update 4/25 > > > > Hey Kudu-ers, > > > > For the last month and a half, I've been posting weekly summaries of > community development activity on the Kudu blog. In case you aren't on > twitter or slack you might not have seen the posts, so I'm going to start > emailing them to the list as well. > > > > Here's this week's update: > > http://getkudu.io/2016/04/25/weekly-update.html > > > > Feel free to reply to this mail if you have any questions or would like to > get involved in development. > > > > -Todd > > > > > -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera
