[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12728?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14276224#comment-14276224 ]
Enis Soztutar commented on HBASE-12728: --------------------------------------- Great patch. BulkMutator looks good except I would also prefer BufferedMutator. Table already does bulk puts via put(List<Put>) interface. This is more like buffered/async puts. Shouldn't this get the BulkMutator (the interface) instead of the implementation class? {code} public void onException(RetriesExhaustedWithDetailsException exception, HBulkMutator hBulkMutator) {code} BulkMutatorParameters -> BulkMutatorConfig(uration). We usually suffix these kind of objects with Config (look at TableConfiguration). Also can we do builder-style on setXXX() methods. This class is only for passing args to the method it seems. Do we really need it? Why are we exposing Lock to users. Should this be a boolean whether you want thread-safe or not. Table.close -> BulkMutator.close() below: {code} + * The caller is responsible for calling {@link Table#close()} on the returned bulkMutator {code} HBulkMutator -> H prefix is old school. Let's use Impl suffix. > buffered writes substantially less useful after removal of HTablePool > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: HBASE-12728 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-12728 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Bug > Components: hbase > Affects Versions: 0.98.0 > Reporter: Aaron Beppu > Assignee: Solomon Duskis > Priority: Blocker > Fix For: 1.0.0, 2.0.0, 1.1.0 > > Attachments: 12728.connection-owns-buffers.example.branch-1.0.patch, > HBASE-12728.patch, bulk-mutator.patch > > > In previous versions of HBase, when use of HTablePool was encouraged, HTable > instances were long-lived in that pool, and for that reason, if autoFlush was > set to false, the table instance could accumulate a full buffer of writes > before a flush was triggered. Writes from the client to the cluster could > then be substantially larger and less frequent than without buffering. > However, when HTablePool was deprecated, the primary justification seems to > have been that creating HTable instances is cheap, so long as the connection > and executor service being passed to it are pre-provided. A use pattern was > encouraged where users should create a new HTable instance for every > operation, using an existing connection and executor service, and then close > the table. In this pattern, buffered writes are substantially less useful; > writes are as small and as frequent as they would have been with > autoflush=true, except the synchronous write is moved from the operation > itself to the table close call which immediately follows. > More concretely : > ``` > // Given these two helpers ... > private HTableInterface getAutoFlushTable(String tableName) throws > IOException { > // (autoflush is true by default) > return storedConnection.getTable(tableName, executorService); > } > private HTableInterface getBufferedTable(String tableName) throws IOException > { > HTableInterface table = getAutoFlushTable(tableName); > table.setAutoFlush(false); > return table; > } > // it's my contention that these two methods would behave almost identically, > // except the first will hit a synchronous flush during the put call, > and the second will > // flush during the (hidden) close call on table. > private void writeAutoFlushed(Put somePut) throws IOException { > try (HTableInterface table = getAutoFlushTable(tableName)) { > table.put(somePut); // will do synchronous flush > } > } > private void writeBuffered(Put somePut) throws IOException { > try (HTableInterface table = getBufferedTable(tableName)) { > table.put(somePut); > } // auto-close will trigger synchronous flush > } > ``` > For buffered writes to actually provide a performance benefit to users, one > of two things must happen: > - The writeBuffer itself shouldn't live, flush and die with the lifecycle of > it's HTableInstance. If the writeBuffer were managed elsewhere and had a long > lifespan, this could cease to be an issue. However, if the same writeBuffer > is appended to by multiple tables, then some additional concurrency control > will be needed around it. > - Alternatively, there should be some pattern for having long-lived HTable > instances. However, since HTable is not thread-safe, we'd need multiple > instances, and a mechanism for leasing them out safely -- which sure sounds a > lot like the old HTablePool to me. > See discussion on mailing list here : > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/hbase-user/201412.mbox/%3CCAPdJLkEzmUQZ_kvD%3D8mrxi4V%3DhCmUp3g9MUZsddD%2Bmon%2BAvNtg%40mail.gmail.com%3E -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)