[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3048?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12916006#action_12916006
]
stack commented on HBASE-3048:
------------------------------
This is fine by me. The one objection I was going to raise was the delete
markers story but you got that in your footnote.
> unify code for major/minor compactions
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-3048
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3048
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Kannan Muthukkaruppan
>
> Today minor compactions do not process deletes, purge old versions, etc. Only
> major compactions do. The rationale was probably to save CPU (?). We should
> evaluate if major compaction logic indeed runs significantly slower.
> Unifying minor compactions to do the same thing as major compactions has
> other advantages:
> * If the same data is overwritten several times and we are not processing
> overwrites, it makes each subsequent minor compaction more expensive as the
> total amount of data.
> * We'll have fewer bugs if the logic is as symmetric as possible. Any bugs in
> TTL enforcement, version enforcement, etc. could cause behavior to be
> different after a major compaction. Keeping the same logic means these bugs
> will get caught earlier.
> -
> Note: There will still need to be one difference in the two schemes, and that
> has to do with delete markers. Any compaction which doesn't compact all files
> will still need to leave delete markers.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
