Dave: I wonder if Filter response can be enhanced in the following manner: http://pastebin.com/sb6apTPm
My approach is based on using essential column family (column family A in your case) to guide whether the remaining column families should be loaded. To be specific, if outside the TimeRange you specify (last day), your filter returns ReturnCode.INCLUDE_AND_SEEK_NEXT_ROW. What do you think ? Cheers On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Dave Latham <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for brainstorming, Ted. That sounds like option 2 I listed using a > separate scanner for A vs B which "adds complexity to the job and gives up > the atomicity/consistency guarantees as new writes hit both column > families". > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Can you achieve your goal with two scans ? > > The first scan specifies TimeRange corresponding to last day. This scan > > returns both column families. > > The other scan specifies TimeRange excluding last day. This scan returns > > column family A. > > > > Cheers > > > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Dave Latham <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Ted, > > > > > > Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm not sure that it helps my case much. > > I > > > wasn't very familiar with the feature, and it doesn't seem very well > > > documented - I had to go to the source and the originating JIRA to > > > understand how it works. It sounds like it allows you to mark which > > column > > > families the filter operates on ("essential" seems an odd name). If > any > > > data from those column families passes the filter, then the scan loads > > and > > > includes data from the remaining families without filtering it. In my > > > case, it's not clear from a row's family A whether or not family B for > > that > > > row is required (though that could probably be added). Moreover, even > > if a > > > row has recent data, we don't want to load all the old data from that > > row. > > > We'd prefer to be able to entirely skip reading the data off disk for > the > > > old store files. > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Have you considered using essential column family feature (through > > > Filter) > > > > ? > > > > In your case A would be the essential column family. > > > > Within TimeRange for recent data, the filter would return both column > > > > families. > > > > Outside the TimeRange, only family A is returned. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Dave Latham <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I have a table with 2 column families, call them A and B, with new > > data > > > > > regularly being added. They are very different sizes: B is 100x the > > > size > > > > of > > > > > A. Among other uses for this data, I have a MapReduce job that > needs > > > to > > > > > read all of A, but only recent data from B (e.g. last day). Here > are > > > > some > > > > > methods I've considered: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Use a Filter to get throw out older data from B (this is > what I > > > > > currently do). However, all the data from B still needs to be > > read > > > > from > > > > > disk, causing a disk IO bottleneck. > > > > > 2. Configure the table input format to read from B only, using a > > > > > TimeRange for recent data, and have each map task open a > separate > > > > > scanner > > > > > for A (without a TimeRange) then merge the data in the map task. > > > > > However, > > > > > this adds complexity to the job and gives up the > > > atomicity/consistency > > > > > guarantees as new writes hit both column families. > > > > > 3. Add a new column family C to the table with an additional > copy > > of > > > > the > > > > > data in B, but set a TTL on it. All writes duplicate the data > > > written > > > > > to B > > > > > and C. Change the scan to include C instead of B. However, > this > > > adds > > > > > all > > > > > the overhead of another column family, more writes, and having > to > > > set > > > > > the > > > > > TTL to the maximum of any time window I want to scan > efficiently. > > > > > 4. Implement an enhancement to HBase's Scan to allow giving each > > > > column > > > > > family its own TimeRange. The job would then be able to skip > most > > > old > > > > > large store files (hopefully all of them with tiered compaction > at > > > > some > > > > > point). > > > > > > > > > > Does anyone have other suggestions? Would HBase be willing to > accept > > > > > updating Scan to have different TimeRange's for each column > families? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
