[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-4278?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16343550#comment-16343550
 ] 

Ohad Shacham commented on PHOENIX-4278:
---------------------------------------

As the bot stated, I uploaded a pull request for this Jira. 

[~jamestaylor], just wanted to note that in this commit I also changed the way 
deletion is being made. Instead of using Tephra's deletion marker I am using 
Tephra's regular deletion api. This will be crucial for Omid, since using 
Omid's api will let Omid know that a deletion has been made and that update of 
its shadow cell upon commit is needed. Update the deletion marker directly in 
HBase will result in removing the commit information from the commit table, 
without updating the shadow cells, and the index update will be treated as not 
committed.

> Implement pure client side transactional index maintenance
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: PHOENIX-4278
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-4278
>             Project: Phoenix
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: James Taylor
>            Assignee: Ohad Shacham
>            Priority: Major
>
> The index maintenance for transactions follows the same model as non 
> transactional tables - coprocessor based on data table updates that looks up 
> previous row value to perform maintenance. This is necessary for non 
> transactional tables to ensure the rows are locked so that a consistent view 
> may be obtained. However, for transactional tables, the time stamp oracle 
> ensures uniqueness of time stamps (via transaction IDs) and the filtering 
> handles a scan seeing the "true" last committed value for a row. Thus, 
> there's no hard dependency to perform this on the server side.
> Moving the index maintenance to the client side would prevent any RS->RS RPC 
> calls (which have proved to be troublesome for HBase). It would require 
> returning more data to the client (i.e. the prior row value), but this seems 
> like a reasonable tradeoff.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Reply via email to