[jira] Updated: (HBASE-1252) Make atomic increment perform a binary increment

["Jonathan Gray (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-1252?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Jonathan Gray updated HBASE-1252:
---------------------------------

    Attachment: hbase-1252-v1.patch

Changes HTable to take a long.  Also changes implementation of increment to work on bytes directly rather than creating new long and incrementing it.  Probably will not see performance improvement from client POV because the actual increment is orders of magnitude faster than the network latency.  Just wanted to move to binary incrementing so we could do it in place down the road, and we can do it on any size column value rather than just 8 byte longs.

> Make atomic increment perform a binary increment
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-1252
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-1252
>             Project: Hadoop HBase
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>    Affects Versions: 0.19.0
>            Reporter: Jonathan Gray
>            Assignee: Jonathan Gray
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 0.19.1, 0.20.0
>
>         Attachments: hbase-1252-v1.patch
>
>
> A few issues related to recently committed HBASE-803
> - The HTable api still takes an integer amount rather than long, mismatching HRI.
> - Binary increments are 10 times faster for small amounts than going Bytes.toLong, += amount, Bytes.toBytes.  Twice as fast for large amounts (binary incrementor just loops a bunch of single increments, though there is plenty of room for optimizations in my current implementation)
> - Using a binary increment means we don't have to worry about the size of the value.  If someone wants a 16 byte value they can have it, just have to initialize as such.  If no existing value exists, will default to long/8 bytes.  Only odd behavior will be what happens when you are at the max value, currently will just stay at all 11111 binary.  Could actually grow the byte[] but then we can't do things in place. I'm okay with leaving it like that, not exactly sure what the current implementation would do, throw an exception or wrap?
> - Using binary incrementing, we can directly manipulate values in the memcache rather than sending updates with the same timestamp.  I think we should hold off on doing this until HBASE-1234 goes in.  We'll then have to deal directly with hlog.  (this issue is not going to address this)

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.