[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13071?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14526155#comment-14526155
]
stack commented on HBASE-13071:
-------------------------------
bq. 1. No problem having a per-scan parameter. The assumption is that scans
should be big in order for the feature to be efficient.
Good. Can say in javadoc that scan needs to be big to get the benefit.
bq. 2. No problem moving to the size-in-bytes parameter. The API should be
identical for synchronous and asynchronous clients.
Good.
Bytes is what we do now rather than rows, since this work
https://blogs.apache.org/hbase/
bq. In the optimistic interpretation, the client would directly relay the API
parameter to the server.
What parameter and why go to the server?
Whats wrong w/ optimistic other than client carrying extra data? I'd say go for
optimistic.
I'd be fine that it 'costs' more on the server as long as tangible benefit.
> Hbase Streaming Scan Feature
> ----------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-13071
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-13071
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: Eshcar Hillel
> Attachments: 99.eshcar.png, HBASE-13071_98_1.patch,
> HBASE-13071_trunk_1.patch, HBASE-13071_trunk_10.patch,
> HBASE-13071_trunk_2.patch, HBASE-13071_trunk_3.patch,
> HBASE-13071_trunk_4.patch, HBASE-13071_trunk_5.patch,
> HBASE-13071_trunk_6.patch, HBASE-13071_trunk_7.patch,
> HBASE-13071_trunk_8.patch, HBASE-13071_trunk_9.patch,
> HBASE-13071_trunk_rebase_1.0.patch, HBaseStreamingScanDesign.pdf,
> HbaseStreamingScanEvaluation.pdf,
> HbaseStreamingScanEvaluationwithMultipleClients.pdf, gc.delay.png,
> gc.eshcar.png, gc.png, hits.delay.png, hits.eshcar.png, hits.png,
> latency.delay.png, latency.png, network.png
>
>
> A scan operation iterates over all rows of a table or a subrange of the
> table. The synchronous nature in which the data is served at the client side
> hinders the speed the application traverses the data: it increases the
> overall processing time, and may cause a great variance in the times the
> application waits for the next piece of data.
> The scanner next() method at the client side invokes an RPC to the
> regionserver and then stores the results in a cache. The application can
> specify how many rows will be transmitted per RPC; by default this is set to
> 100 rows.
> The cache can be considered as a producer-consumer queue, where the hbase
> client pushes the data to the queue and the application consumes it.
> Currently this queue is synchronous, i.e., blocking. More specifically, when
> the application consumed all the data from the cache --- so the cache is
> empty --- the hbase client retrieves additional data from the server and
> re-fills the cache with new data. During this time the application is blocked.
> Under the assumption that the application processing time can be balanced by
> the time it takes to retrieve the data, an asynchronous approach can reduce
> the time the application is waiting for data.
> We attach a design document.
> We also have a patch that is based on a private branch, and some evaluation
> results of this code.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
