[jira] [Commented] (HIVE-20380) explore storing multiple CBs in a single cache buffer in LLAP cache

2018-08-23 Thread Sergey Shelukhin (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-20380?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16591009#comment-16591009
 ] 

Sergey Shelukhin commented on HIVE-20380:
-

After trying various approaches I think since this will anyway involve memory 
copying and interleaving buffers, what needs to happen instead is that we need 
to decrease allocation size after decompression. Which won't move data, either. 
However, for small cache, wide table case, where the entire cache can become 
locked, it's not helpful to replace the fully locked cache of 128Kb buffers 
with 4Kb of data each with 4Kb buffers sitting in cache every 128Kb. So, we'd 
have to move data. We will not have multiple CBs per the Java buffer object, 
but merely change allocations so small CBs don't use large cache buffers.

If we do this shrinking before putting data into cache, then unlike regular 
cache defragmentation, which is complex, we have a set of already locked 
buffers that are also invisible to anyone else, so we can trivially consolidate 
within all the buffers allocated by a read, that noone can touch in any way, 
and free up some large buffers completely and also some parts of the smaller 
buffers (i.e. if we have 10 ROW_INDEX streams, each with <4Kb of data, but 
sitting in 128Kb allocs because the ORC file CB size is 128Kb, we can create 10 
4Kb buffers within one of those 10, and straight up deallocate 9 remaining 
128Kb buffers, plus the 64Kb + 16Kb + 8Kb in the first one). We can also do an 
extra step (e.g. if we have a single 4Kb-of-data-128Kb-alloc) of allocating a 
small buffer explicitly (without defragmentation, and with a flag to not split 
buffers larger than the original for this - no point in creating a 4Kb buffer 
out of another 128Kb of empty space for this example), and copying there before 
deallocating the big one. That will be able to pick up all the crumbs created 
by other consolidations like the one above. Without splitting and retries the 
allocation can be cheap and safe.
This will be controlled by a waste threshold setting.

Unfortunately this will do slightly less than nothing at all for Hive 2 without 
the defrag patch. But, if we backport the defrag patch (pending) this will also 
work for Hive 2.

I may not be able to work on this to completion immediately so just posting a 
brain dump here for reference.

> explore storing multiple CBs in a single cache buffer in LLAP cache
> ---
>
> Key: HIVE-20380
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-20380
> Project: Hive
>  Issue Type: Bug
>Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin
>Assignee: Sergey Shelukhin
>Priority: Major
>
> Lately ORC CBs are becoming ridiculously small. First there's the 4Kb minimum 
> (instead of 256Kb), then after we moved metadata cache off-heap, the index 
> streams that are all tiny take up a lot of CBs and waste space. 
> Wasted space can require larger cache and lead to cache OOMs on some 
> workloads.
> Reducing min.alloc solves this problem, but then there's a lot of heap (and 
> probably compute) overhead to track all these buffers. Arguably even the 4Kb 
> min.alloc is too small.
> We should store contiguous CBs in the same buffer; to start, we can do it for 
> ROW_INDEX streams. That probably means reading all ROW_INDEX streams instead 
> of doing projection when we see that they are too small.
> We need to investigate what the pattern is for ORC data blocks. One option is 
> to increase min.alloc and then consolidate multiple 4-8Kb CBs, but only for 
> the same stream. However larger min.alloc will result in wastage for really 
> small streams, so we can also consolidate multiple streams (potentially 
> across columns) if needed. This will result in some priority anomalies but 
> they probably ok.
> Another consideration is making tracking less object oriented, in particular 
> passing around integer indexes instead of objects and storing state in giant 
> arrays somewhere (potentially with some optimizations for less common 
> things), instead of every buffers getting its own object. 
> cc [~gopalv] [~prasanth_j]



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)


[jira] [Commented] (HIVE-20380) explore storing multiple CBs in a single cache buffer in LLAP cache

2018-08-21 Thread Sergey Shelukhin (JIRA)


[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-20380?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16588243#comment-16588243
 ] 

Sergey Shelukhin commented on HIVE-20380:
-

Hmm, for ROW_INDEX actually boundaries cannot be made consistent for partial 
reads without decompessing the entire ROW_INDEX every time, because sizes of 
streams are not known in advance. Might require custom keys to put all 
row_index together and read bloom filters the normal way.

> explore storing multiple CBs in a single cache buffer in LLAP cache
> ---
>
> Key: HIVE-20380
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-20380
> Project: Hive
>  Issue Type: Bug
>Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin
>Assignee: Sergey Shelukhin
>Priority: Major
>
> Lately ORC CBs are becoming ridiculously small. First there's the 4Kb minimum 
> (instead of 256Kb), then after we moved metadata cache off-heap, the index 
> streams that are all tiny take up a lot of CBs and waste space. 
> Wasted space can require larger cache and lead to cache OOMs on some 
> workloads.
> Reducing min.alloc solves this problem, but then there's a lot of heap (and 
> probably compute) overhead to track all these buffers. Arguably even the 4Kb 
> min.alloc is too small.
> We should store contiguous CBs in the same buffer; to start, we can do it for 
> ROW_INDEX streams. That probably means reading all ROW_INDEX streams instead 
> of doing projection when we see that they are too small.
> We need to investigate what the pattern is for ORC data blocks. One option is 
> to increase min.alloc and then consolidate multiple 4-8Kb CBs, but only for 
> the same stream. However larger min.alloc will result in wastage for really 
> small streams, so we can also consolidate multiple streams (potentially 
> across columns) if needed. This will result in some priority anomalies but 
> they probably ok.
> Another consideration is making tracking less object oriented, in particular 
> passing around integer indexes instead of objects and storing state in giant 
> arrays somewhere (potentially with some optimizations for less common 
> things), instead of every buffers getting its own object. 
> cc [~gopalv] [~prasanth_j]



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)