[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21657?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Zheng Hu updated HBASE-21657: ----------------------------- Attachment: HBASE-21657.v3.patch > PrivateCellUtil#estimatedSerializedSizeOf has been the bottleneck in 100% > scan case. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Key: HBASE-21657 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21657 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Performance > Reporter: Zheng Hu > Assignee: Zheng Hu > Priority: Major > Fix For: 3.0.0, 2.2.0, 2.1.3, 2.0.5 > > Attachments: HBASE-21657.v1.patch, HBASE-21657.v2.patch, > HBASE-21657.v3.patch, HBase1.4.9-ssd-10000000-rows-flamegraph.svg, > HBase1.4.9-ssd-10000000-rows-qps-latency.png, > HBase2.0.4-patch-v2-ssd-10000000-rows-qps-and-latency.png, > HBase2.0.4-patch-v2-ssd-10000000-rows.svg, > HBase2.0.4-ssd-10000000-rows-flamegraph.svg, > HBase2.0.4-ssd-10000000-rows-qps-latency.png, HBase2.0.4-with-patch.v2.png, > HBase2.0.4-without-patch-v2.png, hbase2.0.4-ssd-scan-traces.2.svg, > hbase2.0.4-ssd-scan-traces.svg, hbase20-ssd-100-scan-traces.svg, > overview-statstics-1.png > > > We are evaluating the performance of branch-2, and find that the throughput > of scan in SSD cluster is almost the same as HDD cluster. so I made a > FlameGraph on RS, and found that the > PrivateCellUtil#estimatedSerializedSizeOf cost about 29% cpu, Obviously, it > has been the bottleneck in 100% scan case. > See theĀ [^hbase20-ssd-100-scan-traces.svg] > BTW, in our XiaoMi branch, we introduce a > HRegion#updateReadRequestsByCapacityUnitPerSecond to sum up the size of cells > (for metric monitor), so it seems the performance loss was amplified. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)