[jira] [Commented] (PHOENIX-3685) Extra DeleteFamily marker in non tx index table when setting covered column to null

["James Taylor (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-3685?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15872312#comment-15872312 ] 

James Taylor commented on PHOENIX-3685:
---------------------------------------

[~tdsilva] - would you have time to take a look at this?

> Extra DeleteFamily marker in non tx index table when setting covered column to null
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: PHOENIX-3685
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-3685
>             Project: Phoenix
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: James Taylor
>         Attachments: PHOENIX-3685-test.patch
>
>
> Based on some testing (see patch), I noticed a mysterious DeleteFamily marker when a covered column is set to null. This could potentially delete an actual row with that row key, so it's bad.
> Here's a raw scan dump taken after the MutableIndexIT.testCoveredColumns() test:
> {code}
> ************ dumping IDX_T000002;hconnection-0x211e75ea **************
> \x00a/0:/1487356752097/DeleteFamily/vlen=0/seqid=0 value = 
> x\x00a/0:0:V2/1487356752231/Put/vlen=1/seqid=0 value = 4
> x\x00a/0:0:V2/1487356752225/Put/vlen=1/seqid=0 value = 4
> x\x00a/0:0:V2/1487356752202/Put/vlen=1/seqid=0 value = 3
> x\x00a/0:0:V2/1487356752149/DeleteColumn/vlen=0/seqid=0 value = 
> x\x00a/0:0:V2/1487356752097/Put/vlen=1/seqid=0 value = 1
> x\x00a/0:_0/1487356752231/Put/vlen=2/seqid=0 value = _0
> x\x00a/0:_0/1487356752225/Put/vlen=2/seqid=0 value = _0
> x\x00a/0:_0/1487356752202/Put/vlen=2/seqid=0 value = _0
> x\x00a/0:_0/1487356752149/Put/vlen=2/seqid=0 value = _0
> x\x00a/0:_0/1487356752097/Put/vlen=2/seqid=0 value = _0
> -----------------------------------------------
> {code}
> That first DeleteFamily marker shouldn't be there. This occurs for both global and local indexes, but not for transactional tables. A further optimization would be not to issue the first Put since the value behind it is the same.
> On the plus side, we're not issuing DeleteFamily markers when only the covered column is being set which is good.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)