[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-2565?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15371983#comment-15371983
]
Enis Soztutar commented on PHOENIX-2565:
----------------------------------------
This is a great addition. Is there a short design doc that explains the feature?
I think we should not couple immutable tables with "compact storage". There can
be cases where you would want to keep columns non-compact in immutable tables,
and compact for mutable tables. The features should be orthogonal. If you are
mutating an mutable column value, it can be read-modify-write similar to
secondary index updates.
Is compact storage all or nothing for a table? What about column families?
Should we look into having a subset of columns to be stored together, something
like the original locality-groups versus column family from bigtable (HBase
column family is both locality group and column family in the big table
terminology).
> Store data for immutable tables in single KeyValue
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: PHOENIX-2565
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-2565
> Project: Phoenix
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: James Taylor
> Assignee: Thomas D'Silva
> Fix For: 4.9.0
>
> Attachments: PHOENIX-2565-wip.patch
>
>
> Since an immutable table (i.e. declared with IMMUTABLE_ROWS=true) will never
> update a column value, it'd be more efficient to store all column values for
> a row in a single KeyValue. We could use the existing format we have for
> variable length arrays.
> For backward compatibility, we'd need to support the current mechanism. Also,
> you'd no longer be allowed to transition an existing table to/from being
> immutable. I think the best approach would be to introduce a new IMMUTABLE
> keyword and use it like this:
> {code}
> CREATE IMMUTABLE TABLE ...
> {code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
