[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-111?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13921642#comment-13921642
]
Lars Hofhansl commented on PHOENIX-111:
---------------------------------------
byte[]\{N} and byte[]\{N+1} case :)
If these are really just byte[]'s of length one, the right side has to be
padded or Bytes.split will just return null. But that's simple.
Regarding the padding. I see, for variable length portions of the key we'd want
to pad each variable length portion to be the same length when we calculate
splits, so that all key parts line up.
Then lastly for the types... Hmm... We can always get the first _real_ key of
any region and also the last key (using the seekBefore), then we'd use those to
calculate the split points and extend the first and last to the region's start
and end key (to cover the case that row are added before the first key we found
or after the last key we found). That's somewhat expensive, but we can cache
these for a while. Does not have to be perfect.
> Improve intra-region parallelization
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: PHOENIX-111
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-111
> Project: Phoenix
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: James Taylor
> Assignee: Lars Hofhansl
>
> The manner in which Phoenix parallelizes queries is explained in some detail
> in the Parallelization section here:
> http://phoenix-hbase.blogspot.com/2013/02/phoenix-knobs-dials.html
> It's actually not that important to understand all the details. In the case
> where we try to parallelize within a region, we rely on the HBase
> Bytes.split() method (in DefaultParallelIteratorRegionSplitter) to split,
> based on the start and end key of the region. We basically use that method to
> come up with the start row and stop row of scans that will all run in
> parallel across that region.
> The problem is, we haven't really tested this method, and I have my doubts
> about it, especially when two keys are of different length. The first thing
> that should be done is to write a few simple, independent tests using
> Bytes.split() directly to confirm whether or not there's a problem:
> 1. Write some simple tests to see if Bytes.split() works as expected. Does it
> work for two keys that are of different lengths? If not, we can likely take
> two keys and make them the same length through padding b/c we know the
> structure of the row key. The better we choose the split points to get even
> distribution, the better our parallelization will be.
> 2. One case that I know will be problematic is when a table is salted. In
> that case, we pre-split the table into N regions, where N is the
> SALT_BUCKETS=<N> value. The problem in this case is that the Bytes.split()
> points are going to be terrible, because it's not taking into account the
> possible values of the row key. For example, imagine you have a table like
> this:
> {code}
> CREATE TABLE foo(k VARCHAR PRIMARY KEY) SALT_BUCKETS=4
> {code}
> In this case, we'll pre-split the table and have the following region
> boundaries: 0-1, 1-2, 2-3, 3-4
> What will be the Bytes.split() for these region boundaries? It would chunk it
> up into even byte boundaries which is not ideal, because the VARCHAR value
> would most likely be ascii characters in a range of 'A' to 'z'. We'd be much
> better off if we took into account the data types of the row key when we
> calculate these split points.
> So the second thing to do is make some simple improvements to the start/stop
> key we pass Bytes.split() that take into account the data type of each column
> that makes up the primary key.
> For Phoenix 5.0, we'll collect stats and drive this off of those, but for
> now, there's likely a few simple things we could do to make a big improvement.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
