Considering the footprint of PHOENIX-1734, it would make development onerous if the feature is merged only to 4.x-HBase-1.2. There is already an overhead of having to merge patches in 4 branches. It also has the potential of increasing the likelihood of bugs being introduced arising out of having to handle many more merge conflicts.
Just my 2 cents :) On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:42 AM, James Taylor <jamestay...@apache.org> wrote: > I don't understand why HBASE-15600 is needed if we're ok with the local > index updates not being transactional with older versions of HBase. Why > can't we do the htable.batch() call in ParallelWriterIndexCommitter as we > do now? The row keys are different. If this is an issue, then we could just > enqueue the mutations and let them be submitted outside the row lock. We > don't need to have the row lock. > > Seems to me that it could be made to work without the branches diverging so > radically. > > Thanks, > James > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016, rajeshb...@apache.org <chrajeshbab...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Team, > > > > As you know prior to PHOENIX-1734 we are storing all local index data in > > separate table and colocate data and index regions. To ensure proper > > colocation we need customer balancer, custom split and merge logic still > > these will not ensure 100% colocation. That's why we started working > > PHOENIX-1734 to store local index data in separate column families in the > > same table to ensure 100% colocation. > > > > As part of PHOENIX-1734 we need to write local index udpates to same > region > > in preBatchMutate. When I am working with master branch(The HBase version > > is 1.2.x) it went smooth and I continued the development and ensure new > > implementation of local index works properly and committed the patch to > > master branch as well. > > > > But when I started porting it to other branches(HBase versions less than > > 1.2) I realized that write to same region is in preBatchMutate is not > > allowed by HBase versions less than 1.2. There is a dependency of > > HBASE-15600 to make the new local index implementation work properly for > > versions less than 1.2. So I am not able to port it to other branches. I > > will complete it once the next HBase point releases have HBASE-15600. > > > > Now code in master branch is not in sync with other branches but the > local > > indexing feature is much more stable in master branch after PHOENIX-1734 > so > > I think it would be better to have PHOENIX-1734 in master branch even > > porting it to other branches might delay till upcoming HBase releases > > available. > > > > Wdyt? > > > > Thanks, > > Rajeshbabu. > > >
