[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SENTRY-2305?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16657229#comment-16657229
]
Arjun Mishra commented on SENTRY-2305:
--------------------------------------
Had a discussion with [~kkalyan] about commiting a snapshot Id to
AUTHZ_PATHS_MAPPING table that doesn't yet exist in AUTH_PATHS_SNAPSHOT_ID
table. As of now since there is no foreign key constraint between
AUTHZ_PATHS_MAPPING and AUTH_PATHS_SNAPSHOT_ID table it is fine. In future if
we decide to add one code may need to be modified
> Optimize time taken for persistence HMS snapshot by persisting in parallel
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SENTRY-2305
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SENTRY-2305
> Project: Sentry
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Sentry
> Affects Versions: 2.1.0
> Reporter: kalyan kumar kalvagadda
> Assignee: kalyan kumar kalvagadda
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: SENTRY-2305.001.patch, SENTRY-2305.002.patch,
> SENTRY-2305.003.patch, SENTRY-2305.004.patch, SENTRY-2305.005.patch
>
>
> There are couple of options
> # Break the total snapshot into to batches and persist all of them in
> parallel in different transactions. As sentry uses repeatable_read isolation
> level we should be able to have parallel writes on the same table. This bring
> an issue if there is a failure in persisting any of the batches. This
> approach needs additional logic of cleaning the partially persisted snapshot.
> I’m evaluating this option.
> ** *Result:* Initial results are promising. Time to persist the snapshot came
> down by 60%.
> # Try disabling L1 Cache for persisting the snapshot.
> # Try persisting the snapshot entries sequentially in separate transactions.
> As transactions which commit huge data might take longer as they take a lot
> of CPU cycles to keep the rollback log up to date.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
