[jira] [Updated] (HBASE-14221) Reduce the number of time row comparison is done in a Scan

["ramkrishna.s.vasudevan (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14221?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

ramkrishna.s.vasudevan updated HBASE-14221:
-------------------------------------------
    Attachment: HBASE-14221.patch

Attaching a patch for QA.  Mainly handles two things
At the HRegion level avoids calling the matchingRows() when the StoreScanner has already moved to the next row - this happens only for the Single CF case.
At the StoreScanner level if the scan has moved to the next row - the next next() call will not do CellUtil.matchingRows() because it already knows that it has moved over to the next row.  
In case of filterRowKey() case we need to explicitly reset the nextRow flag because we don't get a chance to call the populateResult() which would have internally set the nextRow to false for the next cell.  

> Reduce the number of time row comparison is done in a Scan
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-14221
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14221
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: Scanners
>            Reporter: ramkrishna.s.vasudevan
>            Assignee: ramkrishna.s.vasudevan
>             Fix For: 2.0.0
>
>         Attachments: HBASE-14221.patch
>
>
> When we tried to do some profiling with the PE tool found this.
> Currently we do row comparisons in 3 places in a simple Scan case.
> 1) ScanQueryMatcher
> {code}
>        int ret = this.rowComparator.compareRows(curCell, cell);
>     if (!this.isReversed) {
>       if (ret <= -1) {
>         return MatchCode.DONE;
>       } else if (ret >= 1) {
>         // could optimize this, if necessary?
>         // Could also be called SEEK_TO_CURRENT_ROW, but this
>         // should be rare/never happens.
>         return MatchCode.SEEK_NEXT_ROW;
>       }
>     } else {
>       if (ret <= -1) {
>         return MatchCode.SEEK_NEXT_ROW;
>       } else if (ret >= 1) {
>         return MatchCode.DONE;
>       }
>     }
> {code}
> 2) In StoreScanner next() while starting to scan the row
> {code}
>     if (!scannerContext.hasAnyLimit(LimitScope.BETWEEN_CELLS) || matcher.curCell == null ||
>         isNewRow || !CellUtil.matchingRow(peeked, matcher.curCell)) {
>       this.countPerRow = 0;
>       matcher.setToNewRow(peeked);
>     }
> {code}
> Particularly to see if we are in a new row.
> 3) In HRegion
> {code}
>           scannerContext.setKeepProgress(true);
>           heap.next(results, scannerContext);
>           scannerContext.setKeepProgress(tmpKeepProgress);
>           nextKv = heap.peek();
> moreCellsInRow = moreCellsInRow(nextKv, currentRowCell);
> {code}
> Here again there are cases where we need to careful for a MultiCF case.  Was trying to solve this for the MultiCF case but is having lot of cases to solve. But atleast for a single CF case I think these comparison can be reduced.
> So for a single CF case in the SQM we are able to find if we have crossed a row using the code pasted above in SQM. That comparison is definitely needed.
> Now in case of a single CF the HRegion is going to have only one element in the heap and so the 3rd comparison can surely be avoided if the StoreScanner.next() was over due to MatchCode.DONE caused by SQM.
> Coming to the 2nd compareRows that we do in StoreScanner. next() - even that can be avoided if we know that the previous next() call was over due to a new row. Doing all this I found that the compareRows in the profiler which was 19% got reduced to 13%. Initially we can solve for single CF case which can be extended to MultiCF cases.



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