Uploaded image for project: 'Cassandra'
  1. Cassandra
  2. CASSANDRA-13939

Mishandling of cells for removed/dropped columns when reading legacy files



    • Severity:


      The tl;dr is that there is a bug in reading legacy files that can manifests itself with a trace looking like this:

      Exception (java.lang.IllegalStateException) encountered during startup: One row required, 2 found
      java.lang.IllegalStateException: One row required, 2 found
          at org.apache.cassandra.cql3.UntypedResultSet$FromResultSet.one(UntypedResultSet.java:84)
          at org.apache.cassandra.schema.LegacySchemaMigrator.readTableTimestamp(LegacySchemaMigrator.java:254)
          at org.apache.cassandra.schema.LegacySchemaMigrator.readTable(LegacySchemaMigrator.java:244)
          at org.apache.cassandra.schema.LegacySchemaMigrator.lambda$readTables$7(LegacySchemaMigrator.java:238)
          at org.apache.cassandra.schema.LegacySchemaMigrator$$Lambda$126/591203139.accept(Unknown Source)
          at java.util.ArrayList.forEach(ArrayList.java:1249)
          at org.apache.cassandra.schema.LegacySchemaMigrator.readTables(LegacySchemaMigrator.java:238)
          at org.apache.cassandra.schema.LegacySchemaMigrator.readKeyspace(LegacySchemaMigrator.java:187)
          at org.apache.cassandra.schema.LegacySchemaMigrator.lambda$readSchema$4(LegacySchemaMigrator.java:178)
          at org.apache.cassandra.schema.LegacySchemaMigrator$$Lambda$123/1612073393.accept(Unknown Source)
          at java.util.ArrayList.forEach(ArrayList.java:1249)
          at org.apache.cassandra.schema.LegacySchemaMigrator.readSchema(LegacySchemaMigrator.java:178)

      The reason this can happen has to do with the handling of legacy files. Legacy files are cell based while the 3.0 storage engine is primarily row based, so we group those cells into rows early in the deserialization process (in UnfilteredDeserializer.OldFormatDeserializer), but in doing so, we can only consider a row finished when we've either reach the end of the partition/file, or when we've read a cell that doesn't belong to that row. That second case means that when the deserializer returns a given row, the underlying file pointer may actually not positioned at the end of that row, but rather it may be past the first cell of the next row (which the deserializer remembers for future use). Long story short, when we try to detect if we're logically past our current index block in AbstractIterator.IndexState#isPastCurrentBlock(), we can't simply rely on the file pointer, which again may be a bit more advanced that we logically are, and that's the reason for the "correction" in that method. That correction is really just the amount of bytes remembered but not yet used in the deserializer.

      That "correction" is sometimes wrong however and that's due to the fact that in LegacyLayout#readLegacyAtom, if we get a cell for an dropped or removed cell, we ignore that cell (which, in itself, is fine). Problem is that this skipping is done within the LegacyLayout#readLegacyAtom method but without UnfilteredDeserializer.OldFormatDeserializer knowing about it. As such, the size of the skipped cell ends up being accounted in the "correction" bytes for the next cell we read. Lo and behold, if such cell for a removed/dropped column is both the last cell of a CQL row and just before an index boundary (pretty unlikely in general btw, but definitively possible), then the deserializer will count its size with the first cell of the next row, which happens to also be the first cell of the next index block. And when the code then tries to figure out if it crossed an index boundary, it will over-correct. That is, the indexState.updateBlock() call at the start of SSTableIterator.ForwardIndexedReader#computeNext will not work correctly. This can then make the code return a row that is after the requested slice end (and should thus not be returned) because it doesn't compare that row to said requested end due to thinking it's not on the last index block to read, even though it genuinely is.

      Anyway, the whole explanation is a tad complex, but the fix isn't: we need to move the skipping of cells for removed/dropped column a level up so the deserializer knows about it and don't silently count their size in the next atom size.


          Issue Links



              • Assignee:
                slebresne Sylvain Lebresne
                slebresne Sylvain Lebresne
                Sylvain Lebresne
                Robert Stupp
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                5 Start watching this issue


                • Created: