[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9969?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16070366#comment-16070366 ]
ramkrishna.s.vasudevan commented on HBASE-9969: ----------------------------------------------- I have done some study here while working with HBASE-14221. I think the benchmarks attached here made sense. But I need to brush up things. If people are interested we can take this forward. [~stack] > Improve KeyValueHeap using loser tree > ------------------------------------- > > Key: HBASE-9969 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9969 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Performance, regionserver > Reporter: Chao Shi > Assignee: Chao Shi > Attachments: 9969-0.94.txt, hbase-9969.patch, hbase-9969.patch, > hbase-9969-pq-v1.patch, hbase-9969-pq-v2.patch, hbase-9969-v2.patch, > hbase-9969-v3.patch, KeyValueHeapBenchmark_v1.ods, > KeyValueHeapBenchmark_v2.ods, kvheap-benchmark.png, kvheap-benchmark.txt > > > LoserTree is the better data structure than binary heap. It saves half of the > comparisons on each next(), though the time complexity is on O(logN). > Currently A scan or get will go through two KeyValueHeaps, one is merging KVs > read from multiple HFiles in a single store, the other is merging results > from multiple stores. This patch should improve the both cases whenever CPU > is the bottleneck (e.g. scan with filter over cached blocks, HBASE-9811). > All of the optimization work is done in KeyValueHeap and does not change its > public interfaces. The new code looks more cleaner and simpler to understand. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029)