[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3411?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14561741#comment-14561741
 ] 

Varun Saxena commented on YARN-3411:
------------------------------------

[~zjshen], I was actually talking about store insertion time and not the entity 
start time. 

If you look at {{LevelDbTimelineStore#checkStartTimeInDb}}, you would find that 
there is a store insert time(which is taken as current system time) also added 
in addition to entity start time. Pls note that store insert time and entity 
start time are not same. 
 
In ATSv1, we could specify a timestamp in query which is used to ignore 
entities that were inserted into the store after it. This is done by matching 
against the store insert time(which is not same as entity start time).

So for backward compatibility sake, do we need to support it ? If yes, I dont 
see it being captured as part of writer implementations, as of now.
If there is no use case for it though, we can drop it in ATSv2. 

> [Storage implementation] explore the native HBase write schema for storage
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: YARN-3411
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-3411
>             Project: Hadoop YARN
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: timelineserver
>            Reporter: Sangjin Lee
>            Assignee: Vrushali C
>            Priority: Critical
>             Fix For: YARN-2928
>
>         Attachments: ATSv2BackendHBaseSchemaproposal.pdf, 
> YARN-3411-YARN-2928.001.patch, YARN-3411-YARN-2928.002.patch, 
> YARN-3411-YARN-2928.003.patch, YARN-3411-YARN-2928.004.patch, 
> YARN-3411-YARN-2928.005.patch, YARN-3411-YARN-2928.006.patch, 
> YARN-3411-YARN-2928.007.patch, YARN-3411.poc.2.txt, YARN-3411.poc.3.txt, 
> YARN-3411.poc.4.txt, YARN-3411.poc.5.txt, YARN-3411.poc.6.txt, 
> YARN-3411.poc.7.txt, YARN-3411.poc.txt
>
>
> There is work that's in progress to implement the storage based on a Phoenix 
> schema (YARN-3134).
> In parallel, we would like to explore an implementation based on a native 
> HBase schema for the write path. Such a schema does not exclude using 
> Phoenix, especially for reads and offline queries.
> Once we have basic implementations of both options, we could evaluate them in 
> terms of performance, scalability, usability, etc. and make a call.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to