>From the information Demian provided in the first email: bq. a table containing 20 million keys splitted automatically by HBase in 4 regions and balanced in 3 region servers
I think the number of regions should be increased through (manual) splitting so that the data is spread more evenly across servers. If the Get's are scattered across whole key space, there is some optimization the client can do. Namely group the Get's by region boundary and issue multi get per region. Please also refer to http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#rowkey.design, especially 6.3.2. Cheers On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Dhaval Shah <prince_mithi...@yahoo.co.in>wrote: > Looking at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6136 it seems like > the 500 Gets are executed sequentially on the region server. > > Also 3k requests per minute = 50 requests per second. Assuming your > requests take 1 sec (which seems really long but who knows) then you need > atleast 50 threads/region server handlers to handle these. Defaults for > that number on some older versions of hbase is 10 which means you are > running out of threads. Which brings up the following questions - > What version of HBase are you running? > How many region server handlers do you have? > > Regards, > Dhaval > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Demian Berjman <dberj...@despegar.com> > To: user@hbase.apache.org > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2013 11:12 AM > Subject: Re: help on key design > > Thanks for the responses! > > > why don't you use a scan > I'll try that and compare it. > > > How much memory do you have for your region servers? Have you enabled > > block caching? Is your CPU spiking on your region servers? > Block caching is enabled. Cpu and memory dont seem to be a problem. > > We think we are saturating a region because the quantity of keys requested. > In that case my question will be if asking 500+ keys per request is a > normal scenario? > > Cheers, > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Pablo Medina <pablomedin...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > The scan can be an option if the cost of scanning undesired cells and > > discarding them trough filters is better than accessing those keys > > individually. I would say that as the number of 'undesired' cells > decreases > > the scan overall performance/efficiency gets increased. It all depends on > > how the keys are designed to be grouped together. > > > > 2013/7/30 Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> > > > > > Please also go over http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#perf.reading > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Dhaval Shah < > > prince_mithi...@yahoo.co.in > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > If all your keys are grouped together, why don't you use a scan with > > > > start/end key specified? A sequential scan can theoretically be > faster > > > than > > > > MultiGet lookups (assuming your grouping is tight, you can also use > > > filters > > > > with the scan to give better performance) > > > > > > > > How much memory do you have for your region servers? Have you enabled > > > > block caching? Is your CPU spiking on your region servers? > > > > > > > > If you are saturating the resources on your *hot* region server then > > yes > > > > having more region servers will help. If no, then something else is > the > > > > bottleneck and you probably need to dig further > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Dhaval > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Demian Berjman <dberj...@despegar.com> > > > > To: user@hbase.apache.org > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 30 July 2013 4:37 PM > > > > Subject: help on key design > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I would like to explain our use case of HBase, the row key design and > > the > > > > problems we are having so anyone can give us a help: > > > > > > > > The first thing we noticed is that our data set is too small compared > > to > > > > other cases we read in the list and forums. We have a table > containing > > 20 > > > > million keys splitted automatically by HBase in 4 regions and > balanced > > > in 3 > > > > region servers. We have designed our key to keep together the set of > > keys > > > > requested by our app. That is, when we request a set of keys we > expect > > > them > > > > to be grouped together to improve data locality and block cache > > > efficiency. > > > > > > > > The second thing we noticed, compared to other cases, is that we > > > retrieve a > > > > bunch keys per request (500 aprox). Thus, during our peaks (3k > requests > > > per > > > > minute), we have a lot of requests going to a particular region > servers > > > and > > > > asking a lot of keys. That results in poor response times (in the > order > > > of > > > > seconds). Currently we are using multi gets. > > > > > > > > We think an improvement would be to spread the keys (introducing a > > > > randomized component on it) in more region servers, so each rs will > > have > > > to > > > > handle less keys and probably less requests. Doing that way the multi > > > gets > > > > will be spread over the region servers. > > > > > > > > Our questions: > > > > > > > > 1. Is it correct this design of asking so many keys on each request? > > (if > > > > you need high performance) > > > > 2. What about splitting in more region servers? It's a good idea? How > > we > > > > could accomplish this? We thought in apply some hashing... > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance! > > > > > > > > > > >
