Re: "upsert select" with "limit" clause
gt;>>>>> >>>>>>> On Dec 17, 2018, at 6:43 PM, Shawn Li wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Vincent, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for explaining. That makes much more sense now and it >>>>>>> explains the high memory usage when without "limit" clause. Because it >>>>>>> upserts much quickly when using "upsert select" without "limit", the >>>>>>> memory >>>>>>> usage in client machine is much higher than "upsert select" with >>>>>>> "limit" . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So back to the other question. Can you explain what is underlying >>>>>>> Phoenix implementation for "upsert select limit"? Why it is slower than >>>>>>> without "limit" when insert a huge number (2m rows) like ""upsert into >>>>>>> table2 select * from table1 limit 2,000,000;". This is much slower than >>>>>>> inserting the whole table (upsert into table2 select * from table1;). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Xiang >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 1:56 PM Vincent Poon >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Shawn, >>>>>>>> Your query *upsert into table2 select * from table1; *would not >>>>>>>> be run on the server - the source and target table are different. It >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> have to be something like: >>>>>>>> *upsert into table1 select * from table1;* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you want to run server-side upsert select on a target table that >>>>>>>> is different from the source table, you need to set >>>>>>>> "phoenix.client.enable.server.upsert.select" to true on your client. >>>>>>>> The are some other restrictions: the table can't have any global >>>>>>>> indexes, and the statement can't have a join or where subquery. We >>>>>>>> need to >>>>>>>> update the documentation with this information. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The reason there are all these hurdles is because it's generally >>>>>>>> not recommended to do server-side upsert select across different >>>>>>>> tables, >>>>>>>> because that means you're doing cross-regionserver RPCs (e.g. read data >>>>>>>> from a region of sourcetable, and write to a region of targettable on a >>>>>>>> different regionserver), potentially tying up handlers in an >>>>>>>> unpredictable >>>>>>>> way. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 7:12 PM Shawn Li >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Jaanai, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> According to Phoenix website, " If auto commit is on, and both a) >>>>>>>>> the target table matches the source table, and b) the select performs >>>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>>> aggregation, then the population of the target table will be done >>>>>>>>> completely on the server-side (with constraint violations logged, but >>>>>>>>> otherwise ignored). Otherwise, data is buffered on the client and, if >>>>>>>>> auto >>>>>>>>> commit is on, committed in row batches as specified by the >>>>>>>>> UpsertBatchSize >>>>>>>>> connection property (or the phoenix.mutate.upsertBatchSize HBase >>>>>>>>> config >>>>>>>>> property which defaults to 1 rows)" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And our sql statement is just: *upsert into table2 select * from >>>>>>>>> table1; *which should match the first case, all operations should >>>>>>>>> be in server site. But the memory usage on the client machine is >>>>>>>>> higher >>>>>>>>> than "upse
Re: "upsert select" with "limit" clause
uot; when insert a huge number (2m rows) like ""upsert into >>>>>> table2 select * from table1 limit 2,000,000;". This is much slower than >>>>>> inserting the whole table (upsert into table2 select * from table1;). >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Xiang >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 1:56 PM Vincent Poon >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Shawn, >>>>>>> Your query *upsert into table2 select * from table1; *would not be >>>>>>> run on the server - the source and target table are different. It would >>>>>>> have to be something like: >>>>>>> *upsert into table1 select * from table1;* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you want to run server-side upsert select on a target table that >>>>>>> is different from the source table, you need to set >>>>>>> "phoenix.client.enable.server.upsert.select" to true on your client. >>>>>>> The are some other restrictions: the table can't have any global >>>>>>> indexes, and the statement can't have a join or where subquery. We >>>>>>> need to >>>>>>> update the documentation with this information. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The reason there are all these hurdles is because it's generally not >>>>>>> recommended to do server-side upsert select across different tables, >>>>>>> because that means you're doing cross-regionserver RPCs (e.g. read data >>>>>>> from a region of sourcetable, and write to a region of targettable on a >>>>>>> different regionserver), potentially tying up handlers in an >>>>>>> unpredictable >>>>>>> way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 7:12 PM Shawn Li >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Jaanai, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> According to Phoenix website, " If auto commit is on, and both a) >>>>>>>> the target table matches the source table, and b) the select performs >>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>> aggregation, then the population of the target table will be done >>>>>>>> completely on the server-side (with constraint violations logged, but >>>>>>>> otherwise ignored). Otherwise, data is buffered on the client and, if >>>>>>>> auto >>>>>>>> commit is on, committed in row batches as specified by the >>>>>>>> UpsertBatchSize >>>>>>>> connection property (or the phoenix.mutate.upsertBatchSize HBase config >>>>>>>> property which defaults to 1 rows)" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And our sql statement is just: *upsert into table2 select * from >>>>>>>> table1; *which should match the first case, all operations should >>>>>>>> be in server site. But the memory usage on the client machine is higher >>>>>>>> than "upsert select limit" clause. And the memory usage is check by run >>>>>>>> 'top' command under Linux. So we are sure it is caused by "select >>>>>>>> upsert" >>>>>>>> in Phoenix and not others, and can't explain why there is so high >>>>>>>> memory >>>>>>>> usage on client/gateway machine when all operations are supposed to >>>>>>>> happen >>>>>>>> on the serve side. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Shawn >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:15 AM Jaanai Zhang < >>>>>>>> cloud.pos...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Shawn, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The UPSERT SELECT will run in a coprocessor on if it hasn't limit >>>>>>>>> clause, only query 1 table, the query is doing aggregation, no >>>>>>>>> sequences >>>>>>>>> and auto commit is on. Please check your SQL ... and you can also >>>>>>>>
Re: "upsert select" with "limit" clause
lly slower than the >>>> other. >>>> >>>> Vincent >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:14 PM Shawn Li wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Jonathan, >>>>> >>>>> The single threaded on one side sounds logical to me. Hopefully >>>>> Vincent can confirm it. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Shawn >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:25 PM Jonathan Leech >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> My guess is that in order to enforce the limit that it’s effectively >>>>>> single threaded in either the select or the upsert. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 17, 2018, at 6:43 PM, Shawn Li wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Vincent, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for explaining. That makes much more sense now and it explains >>>>>> the high memory usage when without "limit" clause. Because it upserts >>>>>> much >>>>>> quickly when using "upsert select" without "limit", the memory usage in >>>>>> client machine is much higher than "upsert select" with "limit" . >>>>>> >>>>>> So back to the other question. Can you explain what is underlying >>>>>> Phoenix implementation for "upsert select limit"? Why it is slower than >>>>>> without "limit" when insert a huge number (2m rows) like ""upsert into >>>>>> table2 select * from table1 limit 2,000,000;". This is much slower than >>>>>> inserting the whole table (upsert into table2 select * from table1;). >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Xiang >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 1:56 PM Vincent Poon >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Shawn, >>>>>>> Your query *upsert into table2 select * from table1; *would not be >>>>>>> run on the server - the source and target table are different. It would >>>>>>> have to be something like: >>>>>>> *upsert into table1 select * from table1;* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you want to run server-side upsert select on a target table that >>>>>>> is different from the source table, you need to set >>>>>>> "phoenix.client.enable.server.upsert.select" to true on your client. >>>>>>> The are some other restrictions: the table can't have any global >>>>>>> indexes, and the statement can't have a join or where subquery. We >>>>>>> need to >>>>>>> update the documentation with this information. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The reason there are all these hurdles is because it's generally not >>>>>>> recommended to do server-side upsert select across different tables, >>>>>>> because that means you're doing cross-regionserver RPCs (e.g. read data >>>>>>> from a region of sourcetable, and write to a region of targettable on a >>>>>>> different regionserver), potentially tying up handlers in an >>>>>>> unpredictable >>>>>>> way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 7:12 PM Shawn Li >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Jaanai, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> According to Phoenix website, " If auto commit is on, and both a) >>>>>>>> the target table matches the source table, and b) the select performs >>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>> aggregation, then the population of the target table will be done >>>>>>>> completely on the server-side (with constraint violations logged, but >>>>>>>> otherwise ignored). Otherwise, data is buffered on the client and, if >>>>>>>> auto >>>>>>>> commit is on, committed in row batches as specified by the >>>>>>>> UpsertBatchSize >>>>>>>> connection property (or the phoenix.mutate.upsertBatchSize HBase config >>>>>>>> property which defaults to 1 rows)" >>>>>>>>
Re: "upsert select" with "limit" clause
>>>>>> update the documentation with this information. >>>>>> >>>>>> The reason there are all these hurdles is because it's generally not >>>>>> recommended to do server-side upsert select across different tables, >>>>>> because that means you're doing cross-regionserver RPCs (e.g. read data >>>>>> from a region of sourcetable, and write to a region of targettable on a >>>>>> different regionserver), potentially tying up handlers in an >>>>>> unpredictable >>>>>> way. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 7:12 PM Shawn Li >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jaanai, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> According to Phoenix website, " If auto commit is on, and both a) >>>>>>> the target table matches the source table, and b) the select performs no >>>>>>> aggregation, then the population of the target table will be done >>>>>>> completely on the server-side (with constraint violations logged, but >>>>>>> otherwise ignored). Otherwise, data is buffered on the client and, if >>>>>>> auto >>>>>>> commit is on, committed in row batches as specified by the >>>>>>> UpsertBatchSize >>>>>>> connection property (or the phoenix.mutate.upsertBatchSize HBase config >>>>>>> property which defaults to 1 rows)" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And our sql statement is just: *upsert into table2 select * from >>>>>>> table1; *which should match the first case, all operations should >>>>>>> be in server site. But the memory usage on the client machine is higher >>>>>>> than "upsert select limit" clause. And the memory usage is check by run >>>>>>> 'top' command under Linux. So we are sure it is caused by "select >>>>>>> upsert" >>>>>>> in Phoenix and not others, and can't explain why there is so high memory >>>>>>> usage on client/gateway machine when all operations are supposed to >>>>>>> happen >>>>>>> on the serve side. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Shawn >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:15 AM Jaanai Zhang >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Shawn, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The UPSERT SELECT will run in a coprocessor on if it hasn't limit >>>>>>>> clause, only query 1 table, the query is doing aggregation, no >>>>>>>> sequences >>>>>>>> and auto commit is on. Please check your SQL ... and you can also check >>>>>>>> whether some resources have not been released. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Jaanai Zhang >>>>>>>>Best regards! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Shawn Li 于2018年12月13日周四 下午12:10写道： >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Jaanai, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for putting your thought. The behavior you describe is >>>>>>>>> correct on the Hbase region sever side. The memory usage for >>>>>>>>> blockcache and >>>>>>>>> memstore will be high under such high throughput. But our phoenix >>>>>>>>> client is >>>>>>>>> on a gateway machine (no hbase region server sitting on it or any >>>>>>>>> Hbase >>>>>>>>> service on it), so not sure how to explain such high memory usage for >>>>>>>>> upsert select without "limit" clause. The high memory usage behavior >>>>>>>>> like >>>>>>>>> all select results send to client machine, cached in client machine's >>>>>>>>> memory, and then insert back to target table, which is not like the >>>>>>>>> behavior that should happen, all of this should be done on the server >>>>>>>>> side
Re: "upsert select" with "limit" clause
Shawn, that sounds like a bug, I would file a JIRA. On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:33 PM Shawn Li wrote: > Hi Vincent & William, > > > > Below is the explain plan, both are PARALLEL excuted in plan: > > > > explain upsert into table1 select * from table2; > > > > UPSERT > SELECT > | > > CLIENT 27-CHUNK 915799 ROWS 2831155510 BYTES PARALLEL 18-WAY ROUND ROBIN > FULL SCAN OVER table2 > > > > explain upsert into table1 select * from table2 limit 200; > > > > UPSERT > SELECT > | > > | CLIENT 27-CHUNK 3600 ROWS 48114000 BYTES PARALLEL 18-WAY ROUND > ROBIN FULL SCAN OVER table2 | > > | SERVER 200 ROW > LIMIT > | > > | CLIENT 200 ROW LIMIT > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > Shawn > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 13:30 Vincent Poon >> Shawn, >> >> Can you do an "explain" to show what your two statements are doing? That >> might give some clues. Perhaps one is able to be run on the server for >> some reason and the other is not. >> Otherwise, I don't see why one would be substantially slower than the >> other. >> >> Vincent >> >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:14 PM Shawn Li wrote: >> >>> Hi Jonathan, >>> >>> The single threaded on one side sounds logical to me. Hopefully Vincent >>> can confirm it. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Shawn >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:25 PM Jonathan Leech >>> wrote: >>> >>>> My guess is that in order to enforce the limit that it’s effectively >>>> single threaded in either the select or the upsert. >>>> >>>> On Dec 17, 2018, at 6:43 PM, Shawn Li wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Vincent, >>>> >>>> Thanks for explaining. That makes much more sense now and it explains >>>> the high memory usage when without "limit" clause. Because it upserts much >>>> quickly when using "upsert select" without "limit", the memory usage in >>>> client machine is much higher than "upsert select" with "limit" . >>>> >>>> So back to the other question. Can you explain what is underlying >>>> Phoenix implementation for "upsert select limit"? Why it is slower than >>>> without "limit" when insert a huge number (2m rows) like ""upsert into >>>> table2 select * from table1 limit 2,000,000;". This is much slower than >>>> inserting the whole table (upsert into table2 select * from table1;). >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Xiang >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 1:56 PM Vincent Poon >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Shawn, >>>>> Your query *upsert into table2 select * from table1; *would not be >>>>> run on the server - the source and target table are different. It would >>>>> have to be something like: >>>>> *upsert into table1 select * from table1;* >>>>> >>>>> If you want to run server-side upsert select on a target table that is >>>>> different from the source table, you need to set >>>>> "phoenix.client.enable.server.upsert.select" to true on your client. >>>>> The are some other restrictions: the table can't have any global >>>>> indexes, and the statement can't have a join or where subquery. We need >>>>> to >>>>> update the documentation with this information. >>>>> >>>>> The reason there are all these hurdles is because it's generally not >>>>> recommended to do server-side upsert select across different tables, >>>>> because that means you're doing cross-regionserver RPCs (e.g. read data >>>>> from a region of sourcetable, and write to a region of targettable on a >>>>> different regionserver), potentially tying up handlers in an unpredictable >>>>> way. >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 7:12 PM Shawn Li wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Jaanai, >>>>>> >>>>>> According to Phoenix website, " If auto commit is on, and both a) >>>>>> the target table matches the source table, and b) the select performs no >>>>>> aggregation, then the population of the target table will be done >>>>>> completely on the server-
Re: "upsert select" with "limit" clause
Hi Vincent & William, Below is the explain plan, both are PARALLEL excuted in plan: explain upsert into table1 select * from table2; UPSERT SELECT | CLIENT 27-CHUNK 915799 ROWS 2831155510 BYTES PARALLEL 18-WAY ROUND ROBIN FULL SCAN OVER table2 explain upsert into table1 select * from table2 limit 200; UPSERT SELECT | | CLIENT 27-CHUNK 3600 ROWS 48114000 BYTES PARALLEL 18-WAY ROUND ROBIN FULL SCAN OVER table2 | | SERVER 200 ROW LIMIT | | CLIENT 200 ROW LIMIT Thanks, Shawn On Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 13:30 Vincent Poon Shawn, > > Can you do an "explain" to show what your two statements are doing? That > might give some clues. Perhaps one is able to be run on the server for > some reason and the other is not. > Otherwise, I don't see why one would be substantially slower than the > other. > > Vincent > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:14 PM Shawn Li wrote: > >> Hi Jonathan, >> >> The single threaded on one side sounds logical to me. Hopefully Vincent >> can confirm it. >> >> Thanks, >> Shawn >> >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:25 PM Jonathan Leech >> wrote: >> >>> My guess is that in order to enforce the limit that it’s effectively >>> single threaded in either the select or the upsert. >>> >>> On Dec 17, 2018, at 6:43 PM, Shawn Li wrote: >>> >>> Hi Vincent, >>> >>> Thanks for explaining. That makes much more sense now and it explains >>> the high memory usage when without "limit" clause. Because it upserts much >>> quickly when using "upsert select" without "limit", the memory usage in >>> client machine is much higher than "upsert select" with "limit" . >>> >>> So back to the other question. Can you explain what is underlying >>> Phoenix implementation for "upsert select limit"? Why it is slower than >>> without "limit" when insert a huge number (2m rows) like ""upsert into >>> table2 select * from table1 limit 2,000,000;". This is much slower than >>> inserting the whole table (upsert into table2 select * from table1;). >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Xiang >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 1:56 PM Vincent Poon >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Shawn, >>>> Your query *upsert into table2 select * from table1; *would not be >>>> run on the server - the source and target table are different. It would >>>> have to be something like: >>>> *upsert into table1 select * from table1;* >>>> >>>> If you want to run server-side upsert select on a target table that is >>>> different from the source table, you need to set >>>> "phoenix.client.enable.server.upsert.select" to true on your client. >>>> The are some other restrictions: the table can't have any global >>>> indexes, and the statement can't have a join or where subquery. We need to >>>> update the documentation with this information. >>>> >>>> The reason there are all these hurdles is because it's generally not >>>> recommended to do server-side upsert select across different tables, >>>> because that means you're doing cross-regionserver RPCs (e.g. read data >>>> from a region of sourcetable, and write to a region of targettable on a >>>> different regionserver), potentially tying up handlers in an unpredictable >>>> way. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 7:12 PM Shawn Li wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Jaanai, >>>>> >>>>> According to Phoenix website, " If auto commit is on, and both a) the >>>>> target table matches the source table, and b) the select performs no >>>>> aggregation, then the population of the target table will be done >>>>> completely on the server-side (with constraint violations logged, but >>>>> otherwise ignored). Otherwise, data is buffered on the client and, if auto >>>>> commit is on, committed in row batches as specified by the UpsertBatchSize >>>>> connection property (or the phoenix.mutate.upsertBatchSize HBase config >>>>> property which defaults to 1 rows)" >>>>> >>>>> And our sql statement is just: *upsert into table2 select * from >>>>> table1; *which should match the first case, all operations should be >>>>> in server site. But the m
Re: "upsert select" with "limit" clause
Shawn, in my own investigation with the SELECT statements running slower with LIMIT, I have found that with the limit under certain threshold, Phoenix will perform the scan in SERIAL instead of PARALLEL. Not sure why that is the case, but maybe your explain plan would yield the same insight. On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 10:30 AM Vincent Poon wrote: > Shawn, > > Can you do an "explain" to show what your two statements are doing? That > might give some clues. Perhaps one is able to be run on the server for > some reason and the other is not. > Otherwise, I don't see why one would be substantially slower than the > other. > > Vincent > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:14 PM Shawn Li wrote: > >> Hi Jonathan, >> >> The single threaded on one side sounds logical to me. Hopefully Vincent >> can confirm it. >> >> Thanks, >> Shawn >> >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:25 PM Jonathan Leech >> wrote: >> >>> My guess is that in order to enforce the limit that it’s effectively >>> single threaded in either the select or the upsert. >>> >>> On Dec 17, 2018, at 6:43 PM, Shawn Li wrote: >>> >>> Hi Vincent, >>> >>> Thanks for explaining. That makes much more sense now and it explains >>> the high memory usage when without "limit" clause. Because it upserts much >>> quickly when using "upsert select" without "limit", the memory usage in >>> client machine is much higher than "upsert select" with "limit" . >>> >>> So back to the other question. Can you explain what is underlying >>> Phoenix implementation for "upsert select limit"? Why it is slower than >>> without "limit" when insert a huge number (2m rows) like ""upsert into >>> table2 select * from table1 limit 2,000,000;". This is much slower than >>> inserting the whole table (upsert into table2 select * from table1;). >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Xiang >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 1:56 PM Vincent Poon >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Shawn, >>>> Your query *upsert into table2 select * from table1; *would not be >>>> run on the server - the source and target table are different. It would >>>> have to be something like: >>>> *upsert into table1 select * from table1;* >>>> >>>> If you want to run server-side upsert select on a target table that is >>>> different from the source table, you need to set >>>> "phoenix.client.enable.server.upsert.select" to true on your client. >>>> The are some other restrictions: the table can't have any global >>>> indexes, and the statement can't have a join or where subquery. We need to >>>> update the documentation with this information. >>>> >>>> The reason there are all these hurdles is because it's generally not >>>> recommended to do server-side upsert select across different tables, >>>> because that means you're doing cross-regionserver RPCs (e.g. read data >>>> from a region of sourcetable, and write to a region of targettable on a >>>> different regionserver), potentially tying up handlers in an unpredictable >>>> way. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 7:12 PM Shawn Li wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Jaanai, >>>>> >>>>> According to Phoenix website, " If auto commit is on, and both a) the >>>>> target table matches the source table, and b) the select performs no >>>>> aggregation, then the population of the target table will be done >>>>> completely on the server-side (with constraint violations logged, but >>>>> otherwise ignored). Otherwise, data is buffered on the client and, if auto >>>>> commit is on, committed in row batches as specified by the UpsertBatchSize >>>>> connection property (or the phoenix.mutate.upsertBatchSize HBase config >>>>> property which defaults to 1 rows)" >>>>> >>>>> And our sql statement is just: *upsert into table2 select * from >>>>> table1; *which should match the first case, all operations should be >>>>> in server site. But the memory usage on the client machine is higher than >>>>> "upsert select limit" clause. And the memory usage is check by run 'top' >>>>> command under Linux. So we are sure it is caused by "select upsert" in >>>>> Phoenix and not o
Re: "upsert select" with "limit" clause
Shawn, Can you do an "explain" to show what your two statements are doing? That might give some clues. Perhaps one is able to be run on the server for some reason and the other is not. Otherwise, I don't see why one would be substantially slower than the other. Vincent On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:14 PM Shawn Li wrote: > Hi Jonathan, > > The single threaded on one side sounds logical to me. Hopefully Vincent > can confirm it. > > Thanks, > Shawn > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:25 PM Jonathan Leech wrote: > >> My guess is that in order to enforce the limit that it’s effectively >> single threaded in either the select or the upsert. >> >> On Dec 17, 2018, at 6:43 PM, Shawn Li wrote: >> >> Hi Vincent, >> >> Thanks for explaining. That makes much more sense now and it explains the >> high memory usage when without "limit" clause. Because it upserts much >> quickly when using "upsert select" without "limit", the memory usage in >> client machine is much higher than "upsert select" with "limit" . >> >> So back to the other question. Can you explain what is underlying Phoenix >> implementation for "upsert select limit"? Why it is slower than without >> "limit" when insert a huge number (2m rows) like ""upsert into table2 >> select * from table1 limit 2,000,000;". This is much slower than inserting >> the whole table (upsert into table2 select * from table1;). >> >> Thanks, >> Xiang >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 1:56 PM Vincent Poon >> wrote: >> >>> Shawn, >>> Your query *upsert into table2 select * from table1; *would not be run >>> on the server - the source and target table are different. It would have >>> to be something like: >>> *upsert into table1 select * from table1;* >>> >>> If you want to run server-side upsert select on a target table that is >>> different from the source table, you need to set >>> "phoenix.client.enable.server.upsert.select" to true on your client. >>> The are some other restrictions: the table can't have any global >>> indexes, and the statement can't have a join or where subquery. We need to >>> update the documentation with this information. >>> >>> The reason there are all these hurdles is because it's generally not >>> recommended to do server-side upsert select across different tables, >>> because that means you're doing cross-regionserver RPCs (e.g. read data >>> from a region of sourcetable, and write to a region of targettable on a >>> different regionserver), potentially tying up handlers in an unpredictable >>> way. >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 7:12 PM Shawn Li wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Jaanai, >>>> >>>> According to Phoenix website, " If auto commit is on, and both a) the >>>> target table matches the source table, and b) the select performs no >>>> aggregation, then the population of the target table will be done >>>> completely on the server-side (with constraint violations logged, but >>>> otherwise ignored). Otherwise, data is buffered on the client and, if auto >>>> commit is on, committed in row batches as specified by the UpsertBatchSize >>>> connection property (or the phoenix.mutate.upsertBatchSize HBase config >>>> property which defaults to 1 rows)" >>>> >>>> And our sql statement is just: *upsert into table2 select * from >>>> table1; *which should match the first case, all operations should be >>>> in server site. But the memory usage on the client machine is higher than >>>> "upsert select limit" clause. And the memory usage is check by run 'top' >>>> command under Linux. So we are sure it is caused by "select upsert" in >>>> Phoenix and not others, and can't explain why there is so high memory usage >>>> on client/gateway machine when all operations are supposed to happen on the >>>> serve side. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Shawn >>>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:15 AM Jaanai Zhang >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Shawn, >>>>> >>>>> The UPSERT SELECT will run in a coprocessor on if it hasn't limit >>>>> clause, only query 1 table, the query is doing aggregation, no sequences >>>>> and auto commit is on. Please check your SQL ... and you can also check >>>&
Re: "upsert select" with "limit" clause
Hi Jonathan, The single threaded on one side sounds logical to me. Hopefully Vincent can confirm it. Thanks, Shawn On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:25 PM Jonathan Leech wrote: > My guess is that in order to enforce the limit that it’s effectively > single threaded in either the select or the upsert. > > On Dec 17, 2018, at 6:43 PM, Shawn Li wrote: > > Hi Vincent, > > Thanks for explaining. That makes much more sense now and it explains the > high memory usage when without "limit" clause. Because it upserts much > quickly when using "upsert select" without "limit", the memory usage in > client machine is much higher than "upsert select" with "limit" . > > So back to the other question. Can you explain what is underlying Phoenix > implementation for "upsert select limit"? Why it is slower than without > "limit" when insert a huge number (2m rows) like ""upsert into table2 > select * from table1 limit 2,000,000;". This is much slower than inserting > the whole table (upsert into table2 select * from table1;). > > Thanks, > Xiang > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 1:56 PM Vincent Poon > wrote: > >> Shawn, >> Your query *upsert into table2 select * from table1; *would not be run >> on the server - the source and target table are different. It would have >> to be something like: >> *upsert into table1 select * from table1;* >> >> If you want to run server-side upsert select on a target table that is >> different from the source table, you need to set >> "phoenix.client.enable.server.upsert.select" to true on your client. >> The are some other restrictions: the table can't have any global indexes, >> and the statement can't have a join or where subquery. We need to update >> the documentation with this information. >> >> The reason there are all these hurdles is because it's generally not >> recommended to do server-side upsert select across different tables, >> because that means you're doing cross-regionserver RPCs (e.g. read data >> from a region of sourcetable, and write to a region of targettable on a >> different regionserver), potentially tying up handlers in an unpredictable >> way. >> >> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 7:12 PM Shawn Li wrote: >> >>> Hi Jaanai, >>> >>> According to Phoenix website, " If auto commit is on, and both a) the >>> target table matches the source table, and b) the select performs no >>> aggregation, then the population of the target table will be done >>> completely on the server-side (with constraint violations logged, but >>> otherwise ignored). Otherwise, data is buffered on the client and, if auto >>> commit is on, committed in row batches as specified by the UpsertBatchSize >>> connection property (or the phoenix.mutate.upsertBatchSize HBase config >>> property which defaults to 1 rows)" >>> >>> And our sql statement is just: *upsert into table2 select * from >>> table1; *which should match the first case, all operations should be in >>> server site. But the memory usage on the client machine is higher than >>> "upsert select limit" clause. And the memory usage is check by run 'top' >>> command under Linux. So we are sure it is caused by "select upsert" in >>> Phoenix and not others, and can't explain why there is so high memory usage >>> on client/gateway machine when all operations are supposed to happen on the >>> serve side. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Shawn >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:15 AM Jaanai Zhang >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Shawn, >>>> >>>> The UPSERT SELECT will run in a coprocessor on if it hasn't limit >>>> clause, only query 1 table, the query is doing aggregation, no sequences >>>> and auto commit is on. Please check your SQL ... and you can also check >>>> whether some resources have not been released. >>>> >>>> >>>>Jaanai Zhang >>>>Best regards! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Shawn Li 于2018年12月13日周四 下午12:10写道： >>>> >>>>> Hi Jaanai, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for putting your thought. The behavior you describe is correct >>>>> on the Hbase region sever side. The memory usage for blockcache and >>>>> memstore will be high under such high throughput. But our phoenix client >>>>> is >>>>> on a gateway
Re: "upsert select" with "limit" clause
My guess is that in order to enforce the limit that it’s effectively single threaded in either the select or the upsert. > On Dec 17, 2018, at 6:43 PM, Shawn Li wrote: > > Hi Vincent, > > Thanks for explaining. That makes much more sense now and it explains the > high memory usage when without "limit" clause. Because it upserts much > quickly when using "upsert select" without "limit", the memory usage in > client machine is much higher than "upsert select" with "limit" . > > So back to the other question. Can you explain what is underlying Phoenix > implementation for "upsert select limit"? Why it is slower than without > "limit" when insert a huge number (2m rows) like ""upsert into table2 select > * from table1 limit 2,000,000;". This is much slower than inserting the whole > table (upsert into table2 select * from table1;). > > Thanks, > Xiang > > >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 1:56 PM Vincent Poon wrote: >> Shawn, >> Your query upsert into table2 select * from table1; would not be run on the >> server - the source and target table are different. It would have to be >> something like: >> upsert into table1 select * from table1; >> >> If you want to run server-side upsert select on a target table that is >> different from the source table, you need to set >> "phoenix.client.enable.server.upsert.select" to true on your client. >> The are some other restrictions: the table can't have any global indexes, >> and the statement can't have a join or where subquery. We need to update >> the documentation with this information. >> >> The reason there are all these hurdles is because it's generally not >> recommended to do server-side upsert select across different tables, because >> that means you're doing cross-regionserver RPCs (e.g. read data from a >> region of sourcetable, and write to a region of targettable on a different >> regionserver), potentially tying up handlers in an unpredictable way. >> >>> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 7:12 PM Shawn Li wrote: >>> Hi Jaanai, >>> >>> According to Phoenix website, " If auto commit is on, and both a) the >>> target table matches the source table, and b) the select performs no >>> aggregation, then the population of the target table will be done >>> completely on the server-side (with constraint violations logged, but >>> otherwise ignored). Otherwise, data is buffered on the client and, if auto >>> commit is on, committed in row batches as specified by the UpsertBatchSize >>> connection property (or the phoenix.mutate.upsertBatchSize HBase config >>> property which defaults to 1 rows)" >>> >>> And our sql statement is just: upsert into table2 select * from table1; >>> which should match the first case, all operations should be in server site. >>> But the memory usage on the client machine is higher than "upsert select >>> limit" clause. And the memory usage is check by run 'top' command under >>> Linux. So we are sure it is caused by "select upsert" in Phoenix and not >>> others, and can't explain why there is so high memory usage on >>> client/gateway machine when all operations are supposed to happen on the >>> serve side. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Shawn >>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:15 AM Jaanai Zhang >>>> wrote: >>>> Shawn, >>>> >>>> The UPSERT SELECT will run in a coprocessor on if it hasn't limit clause, >>>> only query 1 table, the query is doing aggregation, no sequences and auto >>>> commit is on. Please check your SQL ... and you can also check whether >>>> some resources have not been released. >>>> >>>> >>>>Jaanai Zhang >>>>Best regards! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Shawn Li 于2018年12月13日周四 下午12:10写道： >>>>> Hi Jaanai, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for putting your thought. The behavior you describe is correct on >>>>> the Hbase region sever side. The memory usage for blockcache and memstore >>>>> will be high under such high throughput. But our phoenix client is on a >>>>> gateway machine (no hbase region server sitting on it or any Hbase >>>>> service on it), so not sure how to explain such high memory usage for >>>&
Re: "upsert select" with "limit" clause
Hi Vincent, Thanks for explaining. That makes much more sense now and it explains the high memory usage when without "limit" clause. Because it upserts much quickly when using "upsert select" without "limit", the memory usage in client machine is much higher than "upsert select" with "limit" . So back to the other question. Can you explain what is underlying Phoenix implementation for "upsert select limit"? Why it is slower than without "limit" when insert a huge number (2m rows) like ""upsert into table2 select * from table1 limit 2,000,000;". This is much slower than inserting the whole table (upsert into table2 select * from table1;). Thanks, Xiang On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 1:56 PM Vincent Poon wrote: > Shawn, > Your query *upsert into table2 select * from table1; *would not be run > on the server - the source and target table are different. It would have > to be something like: > *upsert into table1 select * from table1;* > > If you want to run server-side upsert select on a target table that is > different from the source table, you need to set > "phoenix.client.enable.server.upsert.select" to true on your client. > The are some other restrictions: the table can't have any global indexes, > and the statement can't have a join or where subquery. We need to update > the documentation with this information. > > The reason there are all these hurdles is because it's generally not > recommended to do server-side upsert select across different tables, > because that means you're doing cross-regionserver RPCs (e.g. read data > from a region of sourcetable, and write to a region of targettable on a > different regionserver), potentially tying up handlers in an unpredictable > way. > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 7:12 PM Shawn Li wrote: > >> Hi Jaanai, >> >> According to Phoenix website, " If auto commit is on, and both a) the >> target table matches the source table, and b) the select performs no >> aggregation, then the population of the target table will be done >> completely on the server-side (with constraint violations logged, but >> otherwise ignored). Otherwise, data is buffered on the client and, if auto >> commit is on, committed in row batches as specified by the UpsertBatchSize >> connection property (or the phoenix.mutate.upsertBatchSize HBase config >> property which defaults to 1 rows)" >> >> And our sql statement is just: *upsert into table2 select * from table1; >> *which should match the first case, all operations should be in server >> site. But the memory usage on the client machine is higher than "upsert >> select limit" clause. And the memory usage is check by run 'top' command >> under Linux. So we are sure it is caused by "select upsert" in Phoenix and >> not others, and can't explain why there is so high memory usage on >> client/gateway machine when all operations are supposed to happen on the >> serve side. >> >> Thanks, >> Shawn >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:15 AM Jaanai Zhang >> wrote: >> >>> Shawn, >>> >>> The UPSERT SELECT will run in a coprocessor on if it hasn't limit >>> clause, only query 1 table, the query is doing aggregation, no sequences >>> and auto commit is on. Please check your SQL ... and you can also check >>> whether some resources have not been released. >>> >>> >>>Jaanai Zhang >>>Best regards! >>> >>> >>> >>> Shawn Li 于2018年12月13日周四 下午12:10写道： >>> >>>> Hi Jaanai, >>>> >>>> Thanks for putting your thought. The behavior you describe is correct >>>> on the Hbase region sever side. The memory usage for blockcache and >>>> memstore will be high under such high throughput. But our phoenix client is >>>> on a gateway machine (no hbase region server sitting on it or any Hbase >>>> service on it), so not sure how to explain such high memory usage for >>>> upsert select without "limit" clause. The high memory usage behavior like >>>> all select results send to client machine, cached in client machine's >>>> memory, and then insert back to target table, which is not like the >>>> behavior that should happen, all of this should be done on the server side >>>> as the table schema is exactly the same. By the way, this happens on both >>>> Phoenix 4.7 and Phoenix 4.14. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Shawn >>>> >>>
Re: "upsert select" with "limit" clause
Shawn, Your query *upsert into table2 select * from table1; *would not be run on the server - the source and target table are different. It would have to be something like: *upsert into table1 select * from table1;* If you want to run server-side upsert select on a target table that is different from the source table, you need to set "phoenix.client.enable.server.upsert.select" to true on your client. The are some other restrictions: the table can't have any global indexes, and the statement can't have a join or where subquery. We need to update the documentation with this information. The reason there are all these hurdles is because it's generally not recommended to do server-side upsert select across different tables, because that means you're doing cross-regionserver RPCs (e.g. read data from a region of sourcetable, and write to a region of targettable on a different regionserver), potentially tying up handlers in an unpredictable way. On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 7:12 PM Shawn Li wrote: > Hi Jaanai, > > According to Phoenix website, " If auto commit is on, and both a) the > target table matches the source table, and b) the select performs no > aggregation, then the population of the target table will be done > completely on the server-side (with constraint violations logged, but > otherwise ignored). Otherwise, data is buffered on the client and, if auto > commit is on, committed in row batches as specified by the UpsertBatchSize > connection property (or the phoenix.mutate.upsertBatchSize HBase config > property which defaults to 1 rows)" > > And our sql statement is just: *upsert into table2 select * from table1; > *which > should match the first case, all operations should be in server site. But > the memory usage on the client machine is higher than "upsert select limit" > clause. And the memory usage is check by run 'top' command under Linux. So > we are sure it is caused by "select upsert" in Phoenix and not others, and > can't explain why there is so high memory usage on client/gateway machine > when all operations are supposed to happen on the serve side. > > Thanks, > Shawn > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:15 AM Jaanai Zhang > wrote: > >> Shawn, >> >> The UPSERT SELECT will run in a coprocessor on if it hasn't limit clause, >> only query 1 table, the query is doing aggregation, no sequences and auto >> commit is on. Please check your SQL ... and you can also check whether some >> resources have not been released. >> >> >>Jaanai Zhang >>Best regards! >> >> >> >> Shawn Li 于2018年12月13日周四 下午12:10写道： >> >>> Hi Jaanai, >>> >>> Thanks for putting your thought. The behavior you describe is correct on >>> the Hbase region sever side. The memory usage for blockcache and memstore >>> will be high under such high throughput. But our phoenix client is on a >>> gateway machine (no hbase region server sitting on it or any Hbase service >>> on it), so not sure how to explain such high memory usage for upsert select >>> without "limit" clause. The high memory usage behavior like all select >>> results send to client machine, cached in client machine's memory, and then >>> insert back to target table, which is not like the behavior that should >>> happen, all of this should be done on the server side as the table schema >>> is exactly the same. By the way, this happens on both Phoenix 4.7 and >>> Phoenix 4.14. >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Shawn >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 10:26 PM Jaanai Zhang >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Shawn, >>>> >>>> >>>> For the upsert without limit, which will read the source table and >>>> write the target tables on the server side. I think the higher memory >>>> usage is caused by using scan cache and memstore under the higher >>>> throughput. >>>> >>>> >>>>Jaanai Zhang >>>>Best regards! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Shawn Li 于2018年12月13日周四 上午10:13写道： >>>> >>>>> Hi Vincent, >>>>> >>>>> So you describe limit will sent result to client side and then write >>>>> to server, this might explain why upsert with limit is slower than without >>>>> limit. But looks like it can't explain the memory usage? The memory usage >>>>> on client machine is 8gb (without "limit") vs 2gb (with limit), sometime >>>>&
Re: "upsert select" with "limit" clause
Hi Jaanai, According to Phoenix website, " If auto commit is on, and both a) the target table matches the source table, and b) the select performs no aggregation, then the population of the target table will be done completely on the server-side (with constraint violations logged, but otherwise ignored). Otherwise, data is buffered on the client and, if auto commit is on, committed in row batches as specified by the UpsertBatchSize connection property (or the phoenix.mutate.upsertBatchSize HBase config property which defaults to 1 rows)" And our sql statement is just: *upsert into table2 select * from table1; *which should match the first case, all operations should be in server site. But the memory usage on the client machine is higher than "upsert select limit" clause. And the memory usage is check by run 'top' command under Linux. So we are sure it is caused by "select upsert" in Phoenix and not others, and can't explain why there is so high memory usage on client/gateway machine when all operations are supposed to happen on the serve side. Thanks, Shawn On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:15 AM Jaanai Zhang wrote: > Shawn, > > The UPSERT SELECT will run in a coprocessor on if it hasn't limit clause, > only query 1 table, the query is doing aggregation, no sequences and auto > commit is on. Please check your SQL ... and you can also check whether some > resources have not been released. > > >Jaanai Zhang >Best regards! > > > > Shawn Li 于2018年12月13日周四 下午12:10写道： > >> Hi Jaanai, >> >> Thanks for putting your thought. The behavior you describe is correct on >> the Hbase region sever side. The memory usage for blockcache and memstore >> will be high under such high throughput. But our phoenix client is on a >> gateway machine (no hbase region server sitting on it or any Hbase service >> on it), so not sure how to explain such high memory usage for upsert select >> without "limit" clause. The high memory usage behavior like all select >> results send to client machine, cached in client machine's memory, and then >> insert back to target table, which is not like the behavior that should >> happen, all of this should be done on the server side as the table schema >> is exactly the same. By the way, this happens on both Phoenix 4.7 and >> Phoenix 4.14. >> >> >> Thanks, >> Shawn >> >> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 10:26 PM Jaanai Zhang >> wrote: >> >>> Shawn, >>> >>> >>> For the upsert without limit, which will read the source table and >>> write the target tables on the server side. I think the higher memory >>> usage is caused by using scan cache and memstore under the higher >>> throughput. >>> >>> >>>Jaanai Zhang >>>Best regards! >>> >>> >>> >>> Shawn Li 于2018年12月13日周四 上午10:13写道： >>> >>>> Hi Vincent, >>>> >>>> So you describe limit will sent result to client side and then write to >>>> server, this might explain why upsert with limit is slower than without >>>> limit. But looks like it can't explain the memory usage? The memory usage >>>> on client machine is 8gb (without "limit") vs 2gb (with limit), sometime >>>> upsert without "limit" can even reach 20gb for big table. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Shawn >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 6:34 PM Vincent Poon >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think it's done client-side if you have LIMIT. If you have e.g. >>>>> LIMIT 1000 , it would be incorrect for each regionserver to upsert 100, if >>>>> you have more than one regionserver. So instead results are sent back to >>>>> the client, where the LIMIT is applied and then written back to the server >>>>> in the UPSERT. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 1:18 PM Shawn Li wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Vincent, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The table creation statement is similar to below. We have about 200 >>>>>> fields. Table is mutable and don’t have any index on the table. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS us_population ( >>>>>> >>>>>> state CHAR(2) NOT NULL, >>>>>> >>>>>
Re: "upsert select" with "limit" clause
Shawn, The UPSERT SELECT will run in a coprocessor on if it hasn't limit clause, only query 1 table, the query is doing aggregation, no sequences and auto commit is on. Please check your SQL ... and you can also check whether some resources have not been released. Jaanai Zhang Best regards! Shawn Li 于2018年12月13日周四 下午12:10写道： > Hi Jaanai, > > Thanks for putting your thought. The behavior you describe is correct on > the Hbase region sever side. The memory usage for blockcache and memstore > will be high under such high throughput. But our phoenix client is on a > gateway machine (no hbase region server sitting on it or any Hbase service > on it), so not sure how to explain such high memory usage for upsert select > without "limit" clause. The high memory usage behavior like all select > results send to client machine, cached in client machine's memory, and then > insert back to target table, which is not like the behavior that should > happen, all of this should be done on the server side as the table schema > is exactly the same. By the way, this happens on both Phoenix 4.7 and > Phoenix 4.14. > > > Thanks, > Shawn > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 10:26 PM Jaanai Zhang > wrote: > >> Shawn, >> >> >> For the upsert without limit, which will read the source table and write >> the target tables on the server side. I think the higher memory usage is >> caused by using scan cache and memstore under the higher throughput. >> >> >>Jaanai Zhang >>Best regards! >> >> >> >> Shawn Li 于2018年12月13日周四 上午10:13写道： >> >>> Hi Vincent, >>> >>> So you describe limit will sent result to client side and then write to >>> server, this might explain why upsert with limit is slower than without >>> limit. But looks like it can't explain the memory usage? The memory usage >>> on client machine is 8gb (without "limit") vs 2gb (with limit), sometime >>> upsert without "limit" can even reach 20gb for big table. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Shawn >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 6:34 PM Vincent Poon >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I think it's done client-side if you have LIMIT. If you have e.g. >>>> LIMIT 1000 , it would be incorrect for each regionserver to upsert 100, if >>>> you have more than one regionserver. So instead results are sent back to >>>> the client, where the LIMIT is applied and then written back to the server >>>> in the UPSERT. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 1:18 PM Shawn Li wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Vincent, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The table creation statement is similar to below. We have about 200 >>>>> fields. Table is mutable and don’t have any index on the table. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS us_population ( >>>>> >>>>> state CHAR(2) NOT NULL, >>>>> >>>>> city VARCHAR, >>>>> >>>>> population BIGINT, >>>>> >>>>> … >>>>> >>>>> CONSTRAINT my_pk PRIMARY KEY (state)); >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Shawn >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 13:42 Vincent Poon >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> For #2, can you provide the table definition and the statement used? >>>>>> e.g. Is the table immutable, or does it have indexes? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:08 PM Shawn/Xiang Li >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Want to check what is underlying running for limit clause >>>>>>> used in the following Upsert statement (is it involving any coprocessor >>>>>>> working behind?): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * upsert into table2 select * from >>>>>>> table1 limit 300; * (table 1 and table 2 have same schema) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The above statement is running a lot slower than >>>>>>> without “limit” clause as shown in following, even the above statement >>>>>>> upsert less data: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *upsert into table2 select * from >>>>>>> table1;* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. We also observe memory usable is pretty high without the >>>>>>> limit clause (8gb vs 2gb), sometimes for big table it can reach 20gb >>>>>>> without using limit clause. According to phoenix website description >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> upsert select “If auto commit is on, and both a) the target table >>>>>>> matches >>>>>>> the source table, and b) the select performs no aggregation, then the >>>>>>> population of the target table will be done completely on the >>>>>>> server-side >>>>>>> (with constraint violations logged, but otherwise ignored).” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>My question is If everything is done on server-side, >>>>>>> how come we have such high memory usage on the client machine? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Shawn >>>>>>> >>>>>>
Re: "upsert select" with "limit" clause
Hi Jaanai, Thanks for putting your thought. The behavior you describe is correct on the Hbase region sever side. The memory usage for blockcache and memstore will be high under such high throughput. But our phoenix client is on a gateway machine (no hbase region server sitting on it or any Hbase service on it), so not sure how to explain such high memory usage for upsert select without "limit" clause. The high memory usage behavior like all select results send to client machine, cached in client machine's memory, and then insert back to target table, which is not like the behavior that should happen, all of this should be done on the server side as the table schema is exactly the same. By the way, this happens on both Phoenix 4.7 and Phoenix 4.14. Thanks, Shawn On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 10:26 PM Jaanai Zhang wrote: > Shawn, > > > For the upsert without limit, which will read the source table and write > the target tables on the server side. I think the higher memory usage is > caused by using scan cache and memstore under the higher throughput. > > >Jaanai Zhang >Best regards! > > > > Shawn Li 于2018年12月13日周四 上午10:13写道： > >> Hi Vincent, >> >> So you describe limit will sent result to client side and then write to >> server, this might explain why upsert with limit is slower than without >> limit. But looks like it can't explain the memory usage? The memory usage >> on client machine is 8gb (without "limit") vs 2gb (with limit), sometime >> upsert without "limit" can even reach 20gb for big table. >> >> Thanks, >> Shawn >> >> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 6:34 PM Vincent Poon >> wrote: >> >>> I think it's done client-side if you have LIMIT. If you have e.g. LIMIT >>> 1000 , it would be incorrect for each regionserver to upsert 100, if you >>> have more than one regionserver. So instead results are sent back to the >>> client, where the LIMIT is applied and then written back to the server in >>> the UPSERT. >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 1:18 PM Shawn Li wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Vincent, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The table creation statement is similar to below. We have about 200 >>>> fields. Table is mutable and don’t have any index on the table. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS us_population ( >>>> >>>> state CHAR(2) NOT NULL, >>>> >>>> city VARCHAR, >>>> >>>> population BIGINT, >>>> >>>> … >>>> >>>> CONSTRAINT my_pk PRIMARY KEY (state)); >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Shawn >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 13:42 Vincent Poon >>> >>>>> For #2, can you provide the table definition and the statement used? >>>>> e.g. Is the table immutable, or does it have indexes? >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:08 PM Shawn/Xiang Li >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Want to check what is underlying running for limit clause >>>>>> used in the following Upsert statement (is it involving any coprocessor >>>>>> working behind?): >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> * upsert into table2 select * from >>>>>> table1 limit 300; * (table 1 and table 2 have same schema) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The above statement is running a lot slower than >>>>>> without “limit” clause as shown in following, even the above statement >>>>>> upsert less data: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *upsert into table2 select * from >>>>>> table1;* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. We also observe memory usable is pretty high without the >>>>>> limit clause (8gb vs 2gb), sometimes for big table it can reach 20gb >>>>>> without using limit clause. According to phoenix website description for >>>>>> upsert select “If auto commit is on, and both a) the target table matches >>>>>> the source table, and b) the select performs no aggregation, then the >>>>>> population of the target table will be done completely on the server-side >>>>>> (with constraint violations logged, but otherwise ignored).” >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>My question is If everything is done on server-side, >>>>>> how come we have such high memory usage on the client machine? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Shawn >>>>>> >>>>>
Re: "upsert select" with "limit" clause
Shawn, For the upsert without limit, which will read the source table and write the target tables on the server side. I think the higher memory usage is caused by using scan cache and memstore under the higher throughput. Jaanai Zhang Best regards! Shawn Li 于2018年12月13日周四 上午10:13写道： > Hi Vincent, > > So you describe limit will sent result to client side and then write to > server, this might explain why upsert with limit is slower than without > limit. But looks like it can't explain the memory usage? The memory usage > on client machine is 8gb (without "limit") vs 2gb (with limit), sometime > upsert without "limit" can even reach 20gb for big table. > > Thanks, > Shawn > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 6:34 PM Vincent Poon > wrote: > >> I think it's done client-side if you have LIMIT. If you have e.g. LIMIT >> 1000 , it would be incorrect for each regionserver to upsert 100, if you >> have more than one regionserver. So instead results are sent back to the >> client, where the LIMIT is applied and then written back to the server in >> the UPSERT. >> >> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 1:18 PM Shawn Li wrote: >> >>> Hi Vincent, >>> >>> >>> >>> The table creation statement is similar to below. We have about 200 >>> fields. Table is mutable and don’t have any index on the table. >>> >>> >>> >>> CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS us_population ( >>> >>> state CHAR(2) NOT NULL, >>> >>> city VARCHAR, >>> >>> population BIGINT, >>> >>> … >>> >>> CONSTRAINT my_pk PRIMARY KEY (state)); >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Shawn >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 13:42 Vincent Poon >> For #2, can you provide the table definition and the statement used? e.g. Is the table immutable, or does it have indexes? On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:08 PM Shawn/Xiang Li wrote: > Hi, > > > > 1. Want to check what is underlying running for limit clause > used in the following Upsert statement (is it involving any coprocessor > working behind?): > > > > * upsert into table2 select * from > table1 limit 300; * (table 1 and table 2 have same schema) > > > > The above statement is running a lot slower than without > “limit” clause as shown in following, even the above statement upsert > less > data: > > > > *upsert into table2 select * from > table1;* > > > > 2. We also observe memory usable is pretty high without the > limit clause (8gb vs 2gb), sometimes for big table it can reach 20gb > without using limit clause. According to phoenix website description for > upsert select “If auto commit is on, and both a) the target table matches > the source table, and b) the select performs no aggregation, then the > population of the target table will be done completely on the server-side > (with constraint violations logged, but otherwise ignored).” > > > >My question is If everything is done on server-side, > how come we have such high memory usage on the client machine? > > > > Thanks, > > Shawn >
Re: "upsert select" with "limit" clause
Hi Vincent, So you describe limit will sent result to client side and then write to server, this might explain why upsert with limit is slower than without limit. But looks like it can't explain the memory usage? The memory usage on client machine is 8gb (without "limit") vs 2gb (with limit), sometime upsert without "limit" can even reach 20gb for big table. Thanks, Shawn On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 6:34 PM Vincent Poon wrote: > I think it's done client-side if you have LIMIT. If you have e.g. LIMIT > 1000 , it would be incorrect for each regionserver to upsert 100, if you > have more than one regionserver. So instead results are sent back to the > client, where the LIMIT is applied and then written back to the server in > the UPSERT. > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 1:18 PM Shawn Li wrote: > >> Hi Vincent, >> >> >> >> The table creation statement is similar to below. We have about 200 >> fields. Table is mutable and don’t have any index on the table. >> >> >> >> CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS us_population ( >> >> state CHAR(2) NOT NULL, >> >> city VARCHAR, >> >> population BIGINT, >> >> … >> >> CONSTRAINT my_pk PRIMARY KEY (state)); >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Shawn >> >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 13:42 Vincent Poon > >>> For #2, can you provide the table definition and the statement used? >>> e.g. Is the table immutable, or does it have indexes? >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:08 PM Shawn/Xiang Li >>> wrote: >>> Hi, 1. Want to check what is underlying running for limit clause used in the following Upsert statement (is it involving any coprocessor working behind?): * upsert into table2 select * from table1 limit 300; * (table 1 and table 2 have same schema) The above statement is running a lot slower than without “limit” clause as shown in following, even the above statement upsert less data: *upsert into table2 select * from table1;* 2. We also observe memory usable is pretty high without the limit clause (8gb vs 2gb), sometimes for big table it can reach 20gb without using limit clause. According to phoenix website description for upsert select “If auto commit is on, and both a) the target table matches the source table, and b) the select performs no aggregation, then the population of the target table will be done completely on the server-side (with constraint violations logged, but otherwise ignored).” My question is If everything is done on server-side, how come we have such high memory usage on the client machine? Thanks, Shawn >>>
Re: "upsert select" with "limit" clause
Vincent,
Do we expect to see the same behavior with SELECT?
I observed the following. Not sure what about applying the limit is adding
to the time... especially since there is only one row, much less than the
actual LIMIT.
SELECT tb1."updBy" FROM "prod"."ADGROUPS" tb1 WHERE
("cstId","cltId","pubId","accId","cpgnId") IN
((612266,61623806,7,1736995,343308425));
++
| updBy |
++
| null |
++
1 row selected (0.144 seconds)
SELECT tb1."updBy" FROM "prod"."ADGROUPS" tb1 WHERE
("cstId","cltId","pubId","accId","cpgnId") IN
((612266,61623806,7,1736995,343308425)) LIMIT 1;
++
| updBy |
++
| null |
++
1 row selected (0.571 seconds)
EXPLAIN SELECT tb1."updBy" FROM "prod"."ADGROUPS" tb1 WHERE
("cstId","cltId","pubId","accId","cpgnId") IN
((612266,61623806,7,1736995,343308425));
+-+-+-+
|
PLAN
| EST_BYTES_READ | EST_ROWS_RE |
+-+-+-+
| CLIENT 255-CHUNK 0 ROWS 0 BYTES PARALLEL 255-WAY ROUND ROBIN RANGE SCAN
OVER prod.ADGROUPS [0,612266,61623806,7,1736995,343308425] -
[254,612266,61623806,7,1736995,343308425] | 0 | 0 |
+-+-+-+
1 row selected (0.042 seconds)
EXPLAIN SELECT tb1."updBy" FROM "prod"."ADGROUPS" tb1 WHERE
("cstId","cltId","pubId","accId","cpgnId") IN
((612266,61623806,7,1736995,343308425)) LIMIT 1;
++-++-+
|
PLAN
| EST_BYTES_READ | EST_ROWS_READ | EST_INFO_T |
++-++-+
| CLIENT 255-CHUNK SERIAL 255-WAY ROUND ROBIN RANGE SCAN OVER prod.ADGROUPS
[0,612266,61623806,7,1736995,343308425] -
[254,612266,61623806,7,1736995,343308425] | 8052| 1
| 15446585013 |
| SERVER 1 ROW LIMIT
| 8052| 1 | 15446585013 |
| CLIENT 1 ROW LIMIT
| 8052| 1 | 15446585013 |
++-++-+
3 rows selected (0.117 seconds)
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 3:34 PM Vincent Poon wrote:
> I think it's done client-side if you have LIMIT. If you have e.g. LIMIT
> 1000 , it would be incorrect for each regionserver to upsert 100, if you
> have more than one regionserver. So instead results are sent back to the
> client, where the LIMIT is applied and then written back to the server in
> the UPSERT.
>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 1:18 PM Shawn Li wrote:
>
>> Hi Vincent,
>>
>>
>>
>> The table creation statement is similar to below. We have about 200
>> fields. Table is mutable and don’t have any index on the table.
>>
>>
>>
>> CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS us_population (
>>
>> state CHAR(2) NOT NULL,
>>
>> city VARCHAR,
>>
>> population BIGINT,
>>
>> …
>>
>> CONSTRAINT my_pk PRIMARY KEY (state));
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Shawn
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 13:42 Vincent Poon >
>>> For #2, can you provide the table definition and the statement used?
>>> e.g. Is the table immutable, or does it have indexes?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:08 PM Shawn/Xiang Li
>>> wrote:
>>>
Hi,
1. Want to check what is underlying running for limit clause
used in the following Upsert statement (is it involving any coprocessor
working behind?):
* upsert into table2 select * from
table1 limit 300; * (table 1 and table 2 have same schema)
The above statement is running a lot slower than without
“limit” clause as shown in following, even the above statement upsert less
data:
*upsert into table2 select * from
table1;*
2. We also observe memory usable is pretty high without the
limit clause (8gb vs 2gb), sometimes for big table it can reach 20gb
Re: "upsert select" with "limit" clause
I think it's done client-side if you have LIMIT. If you have e.g. LIMIT 1000 , it would be incorrect for each regionserver to upsert 100, if you have more than one regionserver. So instead results are sent back to the client, where the LIMIT is applied and then written back to the server in the UPSERT. On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 1:18 PM Shawn Li wrote: > Hi Vincent, > > > > The table creation statement is similar to below. We have about 200 > fields. Table is mutable and don’t have any index on the table. > > > > CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS us_population ( > > state CHAR(2) NOT NULL, > > city VARCHAR, > > population BIGINT, > > … > > CONSTRAINT my_pk PRIMARY KEY (state)); > > > > Thanks, > > Shawn > > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 13:42 Vincent Poon >> For #2, can you provide the table definition and the statement used? >> e.g. Is the table immutable, or does it have indexes? >> >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:08 PM Shawn/Xiang Li >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. Want to check what is underlying running for limit clause used >>> in the following Upsert statement (is it involving any coprocessor working >>> behind?): >>> >>> >>> >>> * upsert into table2 select * from >>> table1 limit 300; * (table 1 and table 2 have same schema) >>> >>> >>> >>> The above statement is running a lot slower than without >>> “limit” clause as shown in following, even the above statement upsert less >>> data: >>> >>> >>> >>> *upsert into table2 select * from >>> table1;* >>> >>> >>> >>> 2. We also observe memory usable is pretty high without the limit >>> clause (8gb vs 2gb), sometimes for big table it can reach 20gb without >>> using limit clause. According to phoenix website description for upsert >>> select “If auto commit is on, and both a) the target table matches the >>> source table, and b) the select performs no aggregation, then the >>> population of the target table will be done completely on the server-side >>> (with constraint violations logged, but otherwise ignored).” >>> >>> >>> >>>My question is If everything is done on server-side, how >>> come we have such high memory usage on the client machine? >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Shawn >>> >>
Re: "upsert select" with "limit" clause
Hi Vincent, The table creation statement is similar to below. We have about 200 fields. Table is mutable and don’t have any index on the table. CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS us_population ( state CHAR(2) NOT NULL, city VARCHAR, population BIGINT, … CONSTRAINT my_pk PRIMARY KEY (state)); Thanks, Shawn On Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 13:42 Vincent Poon For #2, can you provide the table definition and the statement used? e.g. > Is the table immutable, or does it have indexes? > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:08 PM Shawn/Xiang Li > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> >> >> 1. Want to check what is underlying running for limit clause used >> in the following Upsert statement (is it involving any coprocessor working >> behind?): >> >> >> >> * upsert into table2 select * from >> table1 limit 300; * (table 1 and table 2 have same schema) >> >> >> >> The above statement is running a lot slower than without >> “limit” clause as shown in following, even the above statement upsert less >> data: >> >> >> >> *upsert into table2 select * from table1;* >> >> >> >> 2. We also observe memory usable is pretty high without the limit >> clause (8gb vs 2gb), sometimes for big table it can reach 20gb without >> using limit clause. According to phoenix website description for upsert >> select “If auto commit is on, and both a) the target table matches the >> source table, and b) the select performs no aggregation, then the >> population of the target table will be done completely on the server-side >> (with constraint violations logged, but otherwise ignored).” >> >> >> >>My question is If everything is done on server-side, how >> come we have such high memory usage on the client machine? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Shawn >> >
Re: "upsert select" with "limit" clause
For #2, can you provide the table definition and the statement used? e.g. Is the table immutable, or does it have indexes? On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:08 PM Shawn/Xiang Li wrote: > Hi, > > > > 1. Want to check what is underlying running for limit clause used > in the following Upsert statement (is it involving any coprocessor working > behind?): > > > > * upsert into table2 select * from table1 > limit 300; * (table 1 and table 2 have same schema) > > > > The above statement is running a lot slower than without > “limit” clause as shown in following, even the above statement upsert less > data: > > > > *upsert into table2 select * from table1;* > > > > 2. We also observe memory usable is pretty high without the limit > clause (8gb vs 2gb), sometimes for big table it can reach 20gb without > using limit clause. According to phoenix website description for upsert > select “If auto commit is on, and both a) the target table matches the > source table, and b) the select performs no aggregation, then the > population of the target table will be done completely on the server-side > (with constraint violations logged, but otherwise ignored).” > > > >My question is If everything is done on server-side, how > come we have such high memory usage on the client machine? > > > > Thanks, > > Shawn >
"upsert select" with "limit" clause
Hi, 1. Want to check what is underlying running for limit clause used in the following Upsert statement (is it involving any coprocessor working behind?): * upsert into table2 select * from table1 limit 300; * (table 1 and table 2 have same schema) The above statement is running a lot slower than without “limit” clause as shown in following, even the above statement upsert less data: *upsert into table2 select * from table1;* 2. We also observe memory usable is pretty high without the limit clause (8gb vs 2gb), sometimes for big table it can reach 20gb without using limit clause. According to phoenix website description for upsert select “If auto commit is on, and both a) the target table matches the source table, and b) the select performs no aggregation, then the population of the target table will be done completely on the server-side (with constraint violations logged, but otherwise ignored).” My question is If everything is done on server-side, how come we have such high memory usage on the client machine? Thanks, Shawn
