Uploaded image for project: 'HBase'
  1. HBase
  2. HBASE-2600

Change how we do meta tables; from tablename+STARTROW+randomid to instead, tablename+ENDROW+randomid

VotersWatch issueWatchersCreate sub-taskLinkCloneUpdate Comment AuthorReplace String in CommentUpdate Comment VisibilityDelete Comments
    XMLWordPrintableJSON

Details

    • Bug
    • Status: Closed
    • Major
    • Resolution: Later
    • None
    • None
    • None
    • None

    Description

      This is an idea that Ryan and I have been kicking around on and off for a while now.

      If regionnames were made of tablename+endrow instead of tablename+startrow, then in the metatables, doing a search for the region that contains the wanted row, we'd just have to open a scanner using passed row and the first row found by the scan would be that of the region we need (If offlined parent, we'd have to scan to the next row).

      If we redid the meta tables in this format, we'd be using an access that is natural to hbase, a scan as opposed to the perverse, expensive getClosestRowBefore we currently have that has to walk backward in meta finding a containing region.

      This issue is about changing the way we name regions.

      If we were using scans, prewarming client cache would be near costless (as opposed to what we'll currently have to do which is first a getClosestRowBefore and then a scan from the closestrowbefore forward).

      Converting to the new method, we'd have to run a migration on startup changing the content in meta.

      Up to this, the randomid component of a region name has been the timestamp of region creation. HBASE-2531 "32-bit encoding of regionnames waaaaaaayyyyy too susceptible to hash clashes" proposes changing the randomid so that it contains actual name of the directory in the filesystem that hosts the region. If we had this in place, I think it would help with the migration to this new way of doing the meta because as is, the region name in fs is a hash of regionname... changing the format of the regionname would mean we generate a different hash... so we'd need hbase-2531 to be in place before we could do this change.

      Attachments

        Issue Links

        Activity

          This comment will be Viewable by All Users Viewable by All Users
          Cancel

          People

            Unassigned Unassigned
            stack Michael Stack
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            17 Start watching this issue

            Dates

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Slack

                Issue deployment