You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by Pranav Khaitan <pr...@gmail.com> on 2010/11/26 16:47:02 UTC
Review Request: delete followed by a put with the same timestamp
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://review.cloudera.org/r/1252/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Review request for hbase, Jonathan Gray and Kannan Muthukkaruppan.
Summary
-------
This is a design change suggested in HBASE-3276 so adequate thought should be given before proceeding.
The main code change is just one line which is to ignore key type while doing KV comparisons. When the key type is ignored, then all the keys for the same timestamp are sorted according the order in which they were interested. It is still ensured that the delete family and delete column will be at the top because they have the default column name and default timestamp.
This addresses bug HBASE-3276.
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3276
Diffs
-----
trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/KeyValue.java 1039233
trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/KeyValueScanFixture.java 1039233
trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/TestStoreScanner.java 1039233
Diff: http://review.cloudera.org/r/1252/diff
Testing
-------
Test cases added. Since there is a change in semantics, some previous tests were failing because of this change. Those tests have been modified to test the newer behavior.
Thanks,
Pranav
Re: Review Request: delete followed by a put with the same timestamp
Posted by Pranav Khaitan <pr...@gmail.com>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://review.cloudera.org/r/1252/
-----------------------------------------------------------
(Updated 2010-11-26 16:02:47.462170)
Review request for hbase, Jonathan Gray and Kannan Muthukkaruppan.
Summary (updated)
-------
This is a design change suggested in HBASE-3276 so adequate thought should be given before proceeding.
The main code change is just one line which is to ignore key type while doing KV comparisons. When the key type is ignored, then all the keys for the same timestamp are sorted according the order in which they were inserted. It is still ensured that the delete family and delete column will be at the top because they have the default column name and default timestamp.
This addresses bug HBASE-3276.
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3276
Diffs
-----
trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/KeyValue.java 1039233
trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/KeyValueScanFixture.java 1039233
trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/TestStoreScanner.java 1039233
Diff: http://review.cloudera.org/r/1252/diff
Testing
-------
Test cases added. Since there is a change in semantics, some previous tests were failing because of this change. Those tests have been modified to test the newer behavior.
Thanks,
Pranav
Re: Review Request: delete followed by a put with the same timestamp
Posted by Ryan Rawson <ry...@gmail.com>.
> On 2010-11-26 14:54:45, Ryan Rawson wrote:
> > trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/KeyValue.java, line 1373
> > <http://review.cloudera.org/r/1252/diff/1/?file=17712#file17712line1373>
> >
> > what are all the consequences for not sorting by type when using KVComparator? Does this mean we might create HFiles that not sorted properly, because the HFile comparator uses the KeyComparator directly with ignoreType = false.
> >
> > While in memstore we can rely on memstoreTS to roughly order by insertion time, and the Put/Delete should probably work in that situation, you are talking about modifiying a pretty core and important concept in how we sort things.
> >
> > There are other ways to reconcile bugs like this, one of them is to extend the memstoreTS concept into the HFile and use that to reconcile during reads. There is another JIRA where I proposed this.
> >
> > If we are talking about 0.92 and beyond I'd prefer building a solid base rather than dangerous hacks like this. Our unit tests are not extremely extensive, so while they might pass, that doesnt guarantee lack of bad behaviour later on.
> >
>
> Pranav Khaitan wrote:
> Agree. As I mentioned, this is a major change and more thought needs to be given to it.
>
> However, to resolve issues like HBASE-3276, we need either such a change or extend the memstoreTS concept to HFile as you mentioned.
>
> About consequences, I don't see anything negative here. This change only affects the sorting of keys having same row, col, timestamp. After this change, all keys with the same row, col, ts will be sorted purely based on the order in which they were inserted. When a memstore is flushed to HFile, the memstoreTS takes care of ordering. During compactions, the KeyValueHeap breaks ties by using the sequence ids of storefiles.
the problem is you are now changing how things are ordered sometimes but not all the time. HFile directly uses the rawcomparator, instantiating it directly rather than getting it via the code path you changed. So now you create a memstore in this order:
row,col,100,Put (memstoreTS=1)
row,col,100,Delete (memstoreTS=2)
row,col,100,Put (memstoreTS=3)
But the HFile comparator will consider this out of order since it doesnt know about memstoreTS and it still expects things to be in a certain order.
I'm a little wary of having implicit ordering in the HFiles... in your new scheme, Put,Delete,Put are in that order 'just because they are', and the comparator cannot put them back in order, and must rely on scanner order. During compactions we would place keys in order based on which files they came from, but they wouldn't themselves have an order. Basically we should get rid of 'type sorting' and use memstoreTS sorting in memory and implicit sorting in the HFiles.
- Ryan
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://review.cloudera.org/r/1252/#review1993
-----------------------------------------------------------
On 2010-11-26 07:47:02, Pranav Khaitan wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://review.cloudera.org/r/1252/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated 2010-11-26 07:47:02)
>
>
> Review request for hbase, Jonathan Gray and Kannan Muthukkaruppan.
>
>
> Summary
> -------
>
> This is a design change suggested in HBASE-3276 so adequate thought should be given before proceeding.
>
> The main code change is just one line which is to ignore key type while doing KV comparisons. When the key type is ignored, then all the keys for the same timestamp are sorted according the order in which they were interested. It is still ensured that the delete family and delete column will be at the top because they have the default column name and default timestamp.
>
>
> This addresses bug HBASE-3276.
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3276
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/KeyValue.java 1039233
> trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/KeyValueScanFixture.java 1039233
> trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/TestStoreScanner.java 1039233
>
> Diff: http://review.cloudera.org/r/1252/diff
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Test cases added. Since there is a change in semantics, some previous tests were failing because of this change. Those tests have been modified to test the newer behavior.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pranav
>
>
Re: Review Request: delete followed by a put with the same timestamp
Posted by st...@duboce.net.
> On 2010-11-26 14:54:45, Ryan Rawson wrote:
> > trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/KeyValue.java, line 1373
> > <http://review.cloudera.org/r/1252/diff/1/?file=17712#file17712line1373>
> >
> > what are all the consequences for not sorting by type when using KVComparator? Does this mean we might create HFiles that not sorted properly, because the HFile comparator uses the KeyComparator directly with ignoreType = false.
> >
> > While in memstore we can rely on memstoreTS to roughly order by insertion time, and the Put/Delete should probably work in that situation, you are talking about modifiying a pretty core and important concept in how we sort things.
> >
> > There are other ways to reconcile bugs like this, one of them is to extend the memstoreTS concept into the HFile and use that to reconcile during reads. There is another JIRA where I proposed this.
> >
> > If we are talking about 0.92 and beyond I'd prefer building a solid base rather than dangerous hacks like this. Our unit tests are not extremely extensive, so while they might pass, that doesnt guarantee lack of bad behaviour later on.
> >
>
> Pranav Khaitan wrote:
> Agree. As I mentioned, this is a major change and more thought needs to be given to it.
>
> However, to resolve issues like HBASE-3276, we need either such a change or extend the memstoreTS concept to HFile as you mentioned.
>
> About consequences, I don't see anything negative here. This change only affects the sorting of keys having same row, col, timestamp. After this change, all keys with the same row, col, ts will be sorted purely based on the order in which they were inserted. When a memstore is flushed to HFile, the memstoreTS takes care of ordering. During compactions, the KeyValueHeap breaks ties by using the sequence ids of storefiles.
>
> Ryan Rawson wrote:
> the problem is you are now changing how things are ordered sometimes but not all the time. HFile directly uses the rawcomparator, instantiating it directly rather than getting it via the code path you changed. So now you create a memstore in this order:
>
> row,col,100,Put (memstoreTS=1)
> row,col,100,Delete (memstoreTS=2)
> row,col,100,Put (memstoreTS=3)
>
> But the HFile comparator will consider this out of order since it doesnt know about memstoreTS and it still expects things to be in a certain order.
>
> I'm a little wary of having implicit ordering in the HFiles... in your new scheme, Put,Delete,Put are in that order 'just because they are', and the comparator cannot put them back in order, and must rely on scanner order. During compactions we would place keys in order based on which files they came from, but they wouldn't themselves have an order. Basically we should get rid of 'type sorting' and use memstoreTS sorting in memory and implicit sorting in the HFiles.
>
>
>
> Pranav Khaitan wrote:
> Right. I see that HFile does an extra check and throws an IOException when it gets data out of the order. So if we go forward with this change, we will have to ensure that the comparator used by HFile knows about this change. This change be achieved in two ways: Firstly, by setting the default value of ignoreType = true. Alternately, the HFile can explicitly set ignoreType = true.
@Ryan, you say "Basically we should get rid of 'type sorting' and use memstoreTS sorting in memory and implicit sorting in the HFiles." You think this a receipe we should adopt going forward? Giving it cursory thought, it would seem like it should work. What about migrating data that was sorted using current KV comparator? Do we need to migrate files made using old sort order? Should we mark files that have this new ordering type 2 files?
- stack
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://review.cloudera.org/r/1252/#review1993
-----------------------------------------------------------
On 2010-11-26 16:02:47, Pranav Khaitan wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://review.cloudera.org/r/1252/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated 2010-11-26 16:02:47)
>
>
> Review request for hbase, Jonathan Gray and Kannan Muthukkaruppan.
>
>
> Summary
> -------
>
> This is a design change suggested in HBASE-3276 so adequate thought should be given before proceeding.
>
> The main code change is just one line which is to ignore key type while doing KV comparisons. When the key type is ignored, then all the keys for the same timestamp are sorted according the order in which they were inserted. It is still ensured that the delete family and delete column will be at the top because they have the default column name and default timestamp.
>
>
> This addresses bug HBASE-3276.
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3276
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/KeyValue.java 1039233
> trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/KeyValueScanFixture.java 1039233
> trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/TestStoreScanner.java 1039233
>
> Diff: http://review.cloudera.org/r/1252/diff
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Test cases added. Since there is a change in semantics, some previous tests were failing because of this change. Those tests have been modified to test the newer behavior.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pranav
>
>
Re: Review Request: delete followed by a put with the same timestamp
Posted by Pranav Khaitan <pr...@gmail.com>.
> On 2010-11-26 14:54:45, Ryan Rawson wrote:
> > trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/KeyValue.java, line 1373
> > <http://review.cloudera.org/r/1252/diff/1/?file=17712#file17712line1373>
> >
> > what are all the consequences for not sorting by type when using KVComparator? Does this mean we might create HFiles that not sorted properly, because the HFile comparator uses the KeyComparator directly with ignoreType = false.
> >
> > While in memstore we can rely on memstoreTS to roughly order by insertion time, and the Put/Delete should probably work in that situation, you are talking about modifiying a pretty core and important concept in how we sort things.
> >
> > There are other ways to reconcile bugs like this, one of them is to extend the memstoreTS concept into the HFile and use that to reconcile during reads. There is another JIRA where I proposed this.
> >
> > If we are talking about 0.92 and beyond I'd prefer building a solid base rather than dangerous hacks like this. Our unit tests are not extremely extensive, so while they might pass, that doesnt guarantee lack of bad behaviour later on.
> >
>
> Pranav Khaitan wrote:
> Agree. As I mentioned, this is a major change and more thought needs to be given to it.
>
> However, to resolve issues like HBASE-3276, we need either such a change or extend the memstoreTS concept to HFile as you mentioned.
>
> About consequences, I don't see anything negative here. This change only affects the sorting of keys having same row, col, timestamp. After this change, all keys with the same row, col, ts will be sorted purely based on the order in which they were inserted. When a memstore is flushed to HFile, the memstoreTS takes care of ordering. During compactions, the KeyValueHeap breaks ties by using the sequence ids of storefiles.
>
> Ryan Rawson wrote:
> the problem is you are now changing how things are ordered sometimes but not all the time. HFile directly uses the rawcomparator, instantiating it directly rather than getting it via the code path you changed. So now you create a memstore in this order:
>
> row,col,100,Put (memstoreTS=1)
> row,col,100,Delete (memstoreTS=2)
> row,col,100,Put (memstoreTS=3)
>
> But the HFile comparator will consider this out of order since it doesnt know about memstoreTS and it still expects things to be in a certain order.
>
> I'm a little wary of having implicit ordering in the HFiles... in your new scheme, Put,Delete,Put are in that order 'just because they are', and the comparator cannot put them back in order, and must rely on scanner order. During compactions we would place keys in order based on which files they came from, but they wouldn't themselves have an order. Basically we should get rid of 'type sorting' and use memstoreTS sorting in memory and implicit sorting in the HFiles.
>
>
Right. I see that HFile does an extra check and throws an IOException when it gets data out of the order. So if we go forward with this change, we will have to ensure that the comparator used by HFile knows about this change. This change be achieved in two ways: Firstly, by setting the default value of ignoreType = true. Alternately, the HFile can explicitly set ignoreType = true.
- Pranav
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://review.cloudera.org/r/1252/#review1993
-----------------------------------------------------------
On 2010-11-26 07:47:02, Pranav Khaitan wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://review.cloudera.org/r/1252/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated 2010-11-26 07:47:02)
>
>
> Review request for hbase, Jonathan Gray and Kannan Muthukkaruppan.
>
>
> Summary
> -------
>
> This is a design change suggested in HBASE-3276 so adequate thought should be given before proceeding.
>
> The main code change is just one line which is to ignore key type while doing KV comparisons. When the key type is ignored, then all the keys for the same timestamp are sorted according the order in which they were interested. It is still ensured that the delete family and delete column will be at the top because they have the default column name and default timestamp.
>
>
> This addresses bug HBASE-3276.
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3276
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/KeyValue.java 1039233
> trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/KeyValueScanFixture.java 1039233
> trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/TestStoreScanner.java 1039233
>
> Diff: http://review.cloudera.org/r/1252/diff
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Test cases added. Since there is a change in semantics, some previous tests were failing because of this change. Those tests have been modified to test the newer behavior.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pranav
>
>
Re: Review Request: delete followed by a put with the same timestamp
Posted by Pranav Khaitan <pr...@gmail.com>.
> On 2010-11-26 14:54:45, Ryan Rawson wrote:
> > trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/KeyValue.java, line 1373
> > <http://review.cloudera.org/r/1252/diff/1/?file=17712#file17712line1373>
> >
> > what are all the consequences for not sorting by type when using KVComparator? Does this mean we might create HFiles that not sorted properly, because the HFile comparator uses the KeyComparator directly with ignoreType = false.
> >
> > While in memstore we can rely on memstoreTS to roughly order by insertion time, and the Put/Delete should probably work in that situation, you are talking about modifiying a pretty core and important concept in how we sort things.
> >
> > There are other ways to reconcile bugs like this, one of them is to extend the memstoreTS concept into the HFile and use that to reconcile during reads. There is another JIRA where I proposed this.
> >
> > If we are talking about 0.92 and beyond I'd prefer building a solid base rather than dangerous hacks like this. Our unit tests are not extremely extensive, so while they might pass, that doesnt guarantee lack of bad behaviour later on.
> >
Agree. As I mentioned, this is a major change and more thought needs to be given to it.
However, to resolve issues like HBASE-3276, we need either such a change or extend the memstoreTS concept to HFile as you mentioned.
About consequences, I don't see anything negative here. This change only affects the sorting of keys having same row, col, timestamp. After this change, all keys with the same row, col, ts will be sorted purely based on the order in which they were inserted. When a memstore is flushed to HFile, the memstoreTS takes care of ordering. During compactions, the KeyValueHeap breaks ties by using the sequence ids of storefiles.
- Pranav
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://review.cloudera.org/r/1252/#review1993
-----------------------------------------------------------
On 2010-11-26 07:47:02, Pranav Khaitan wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://review.cloudera.org/r/1252/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated 2010-11-26 07:47:02)
>
>
> Review request for hbase, Jonathan Gray and Kannan Muthukkaruppan.
>
>
> Summary
> -------
>
> This is a design change suggested in HBASE-3276 so adequate thought should be given before proceeding.
>
> The main code change is just one line which is to ignore key type while doing KV comparisons. When the key type is ignored, then all the keys for the same timestamp are sorted according the order in which they were interested. It is still ensured that the delete family and delete column will be at the top because they have the default column name and default timestamp.
>
>
> This addresses bug HBASE-3276.
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3276
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/KeyValue.java 1039233
> trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/KeyValueScanFixture.java 1039233
> trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/TestStoreScanner.java 1039233
>
> Diff: http://review.cloudera.org/r/1252/diff
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Test cases added. Since there is a change in semantics, some previous tests were failing because of this change. Those tests have been modified to test the newer behavior.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pranav
>
>
Re: Review Request: delete followed by a put with the same timestamp
Posted by Ryan Rawson <ry...@gmail.com>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://review.cloudera.org/r/1252/#review1993
-----------------------------------------------------------
trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/KeyValue.java
<http://review.cloudera.org/r/1252/#comment6297>
what are all the consequences for not sorting by type when using KVComparator? Does this mean we might create HFiles that not sorted properly, because the HFile comparator uses the KeyComparator directly with ignoreType = false.
While in memstore we can rely on memstoreTS to roughly order by insertion time, and the Put/Delete should probably work in that situation, you are talking about modifiying a pretty core and important concept in how we sort things.
There are other ways to reconcile bugs like this, one of them is to extend the memstoreTS concept into the HFile and use that to reconcile during reads. There is another JIRA where I proposed this.
If we are talking about 0.92 and beyond I'd prefer building a solid base rather than dangerous hacks like this. Our unit tests are not extremely extensive, so while they might pass, that doesnt guarantee lack of bad behaviour later on.
- Ryan
On 2010-11-26 07:47:02, Pranav Khaitan wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://review.cloudera.org/r/1252/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated 2010-11-26 07:47:02)
>
>
> Review request for hbase, Jonathan Gray and Kannan Muthukkaruppan.
>
>
> Summary
> -------
>
> This is a design change suggested in HBASE-3276 so adequate thought should be given before proceeding.
>
> The main code change is just one line which is to ignore key type while doing KV comparisons. When the key type is ignored, then all the keys for the same timestamp are sorted according the order in which they were interested. It is still ensured that the delete family and delete column will be at the top because they have the default column name and default timestamp.
>
>
> This addresses bug HBASE-3276.
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3276
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/KeyValue.java 1039233
> trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/KeyValueScanFixture.java 1039233
> trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/TestStoreScanner.java 1039233
>
> Diff: http://review.cloudera.org/r/1252/diff
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Test cases added. Since there is a change in semantics, some previous tests were failing because of this change. Those tests have been modified to test the newer behavior.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pranav
>
>