You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by "Sean Busbey (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2015/12/18 01:30:47 UTC

[jira] [Resolved] (HBASE-14205) RegionCoprocessorHost System.nanoTime() performance bottleneck

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14205?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Sean Busbey resolved HBASE-14205.
---------------------------------
      Resolution: Fixed
    Hadoop Flags: Incompatible change,Reviewed  (was: Reviewed)

> RegionCoprocessorHost System.nanoTime() performance bottleneck
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-14205
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14205
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Coprocessors, Performance, regionserver
>            Reporter: Jan Van Besien
>            Assignee: Andrew Purtell
>            Priority: Critical
>              Labels: needs_releasenote
>             Fix For: 2.0.0, 1.2.0, 1.3.0
>
>         Attachments: HBASE-14205.patch
>
>
> The tracking of execution time of coprocessor methods introduced in HBASE-11516 introduces 2 calls to System.nanoTime() per coprocessor method per coprocessor. This is resulting in a serious performance bottleneck in certain scenarios.
> For example consider the scenario where many rows are being ingested (PUT) in a table which has multiple coprocessors (we have up to 20 coprocessors). This results in 8 extra calls to System.nanoTime() per coprocessor (prePut, postPut, postStartRegionOperation and postCloseRegionOperation) which has in total (i.e. times 20) been seen to result in a 50% increase of execution time.
> I think it is generally considered bad practice to measure execution times on such a small scale (per single operation). Also note that measurements are taken even for coprocessors that do not even have an actual implementation for certain operations, making the problem worse.



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