Hi Vincent, Versions is set to1 and keep_deleted_cells is false. It's basically the default settings and nothing has been changed.
describe on the hbase table gives below: VERSIONS => '1', MIN_VERSIONS => '0', TTL => 'FOREVER', KEEP_DELETED_CELLS => 'FALSE' Thanks, Abhishek On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 3:20 PM Vincent Poon <vincentp...@apache.org> wrote: > is your max_versions set to 1 ? keep_deleted_cells? > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 10:41 AM talluri abhishek < > abhishektall...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> We are seeing a couple of issues on some of our Phoenix tables where the >> size of the tables keep growing 2-3 times after around 2-3 days of >> ingestion and the read performance takes a big hit after that. Now, if we >> insert overwrite the data in that table to a new copy table, the data size >> comes back to normal size and the queries perform fast on that copy table. >> >> Initial table size after 1st day ~ 5G >> After 2 days of ingestion ~ 15G >> Re-write into a copy table ~ 5-6 G >> >> Query performance becomes proportional to the size of the table, lets say >> the query took 40 secs to run on the original table after first day, it >> takes around 130-160 secs after 2 days of ingestion. The same query when >> run on the copy table finishes in around ~40secs. >> >> Most of the ingested data after the first day are mostly updates >> happening on the existing rows, so we thought major compaction should solve >> the size issue but it does not shrink the size every time (load happens in >> parallel when the compaction is run). >> Write performance is always good and we have used salt buckets to even >> out the writes. The primary key is a 12-bit string which is made by the >> concatenation of some account id and an auto-generated transaction number. >> >> One query that has a toll on its performance as mentioned above is: >> *select (list of 50-70 columns) from original_table where account_id IN >> (list of 100k account ids) *[account_id in this query is the primary key >> on that table] >> >> We are currently increasing the heap space on these region servers to >> provide more memstore size, which could reduce the number of flushes for >> the upserted data. >> >> Could there be any other reason for the increase in the size of the table >> apart from the updated rows? How could we better the performance of those >> read queries? >> >> Thanks, >> Abhishek >> >
