[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24637?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17227769#comment-17227769
]
ramkrishna.s.vasudevan commented on HBASE-24637:
------------------------------------------------
[~apurtell]
I agree that there are seeks but what I felt is that the tryToSkipNextRow or
tryToSkipToNextCol is trying its best to avoid the seek. But it is more of the
compares that is adding to the CPU cycles is what I observed because in the PE
case we just add all cols of the given row. So when ever there is no
nextIndexedKey as part of the next() call, only then we reseek. So it is once
at the end of the block we do seek. Not for every column.
How ever I have a patch where we try to understand whether we are always
reseeking to the block that was actually fetched via the next() call, if both
blocks are same and if this happens for certain number of blocks we fall back
to pure next() mode rather then even trying to do next() or seek() which
involves lot of compares. Will post a patch early next week.
> Reseek regression related to filter SKIP hinting
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-24637
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-24637
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Filters, Performance, Scanners
> Affects Versions: 2.2.5
> Reporter: Andrew Kyle Purtell
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: W-7665966-FAST_DIFF-FILTER_ALL.pdf,
> W-7665966-Instrument-low-level-scan-details-branch-1.patch,
> W-7665966-Instrument-low-level-scan-details-branch-2.2.patch,
> parse_call_trace.pl
>
>
> I have been looking into reported performance regressions in HBase 2 relative
> to HBase 1. Depending on the test scenario, HBase 2 can demonstrate
> significantly better microbenchmarks in a number of cases, and usually shows
> improvement in whole cluster benchmarks like YCSB.
> To assist in debugging I added methods to RpcServer for updating per-call
> metrics that leverage the fact it puts a reference to the current Call into a
> thread local and that all activity for a given RPC is processed by a single
> thread context. I then instrumented ScanQueryMatcher (in branch-1) and its
> various friends (in branch-2.2), StoreScanner, HFileReaderV2 and
> HFileReaderV3 (in branch-1) and HFileReaderImpl (in branch-2.2), HFileBlock,
> and DefaultMemStore (branch-1) and SegmentScanner (branch-2.2). Test tables
> with one family and 1, 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100 distinct column-qualifiers per
> row were created, snapshot, dropped, and cloned from the snapshot. Both 1.6
> and 2.2 versions under test operated on identical data files in HDFS. For
> tests with 1.6 and 2.2 on the server side the same 1.6 PE client was used, to
> ensure only the server side differed.
> The results for pe --filterAll were revealing. See attached.
> It appears a refactor to ScanQueryMatcher and friends has disabled the
> ability of filters to provide meaningful SKIP hints, which disables an
> optimization that avoids reseeking, leading to a serious and proportional
> regression in reseek activity and time spent in that code path. So for
> queries that use filters, there can be a substantial regression.
> Other test cases that did not use filters did not show this regression. If
> filters are not used the behavior of ScanQueryMatcher between 1.6 and 2.2 was
> almost identical, as measured by counts of the hint types returned, whether
> or not column or version trackers are called, and counts of store seeks or
> reseeks. Regarding micro-timings, there was a 10% variance in my testing and
> results generally fell within this range, except for the filter all case of
> course.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
