[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14497?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Yerui Sun updated HBASE-14497:
------------------------------
    Attachment: HBASE-14497-master-v4.patch

Here's the v4 patch for master branch. Also fix the same problem on 
MemstoreScanner.

[~yuzhih...@gmail.com],[~zjushch], would you please review this? Thanks.

I'll post the patches for branch-1 and 0.98 later, after Hadoop QA run and 
passed this patch.

> Reverse Scan threw StackOverflow caused by readPt checking
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-14497
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14497
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 2.0.0, 0.98.14, 1.3.0
>            Reporter: Yerui Sun
>         Attachments: HBASE-14497-0.98.patch, HBASE-14497-branch-1-v2.patch, 
> HBASE-14497-branch-1.patch, HBASE-14497-master-v2.patch, 
> HBASE-14497-master-v3.patch, HBASE-14497-master-v3.patch, 
> HBASE-14497-master-v4.patch, HBASE-14497-master.patch
>
>
> I met stack overflow error in StoreFileScanner.seekToPreviousRow using 
> reversed scan. I searched and founded HBASE-14155, but it seems to be a 
> different reason.
> The seekToPreviousRow will fetch the row which closest before, and compare 
> mvcc to the readPt, which acquired when scanner created. If the row's mvcc is 
> bigger than readPt, an recursive call of seekToPreviousRow will invoked, to 
> find the next closest before row.
> Considering we created a scanner for reversed scan, and some data with 
> smaller rows was written and flushed, before calling scanner next. When 
> seekToPreviousRow was invoked, it would call itself recursively, until all 
> rows which written after scanner created were iterated. The depth of 
> recursive calling stack depends on the count of rows, the stack overflow 
> error will be threw if the count of rows is large, like 10000.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to