Uploaded image for project: 'HBase'
  1. HBase
  2. HBASE-9260

Timestamp Compactions



    • Type: New Feature
    • Status: Open
    • Priority: Minor
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Affects Version/s: 0.94.10
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: Compaction
    • Tags:
      compaction, ttl



      The issue

      One of the biggest issue I currently deal with is compacting big
      stores, i.e. when HBase cluster is 80% full on 4 TB nodes (let say
      with a single big table), compactions might take several hours (from
      15 to 20 in my case).

      In 'time series' workloads, we could avoid compacting everything
      everytime. Think about OpenTSDB-like systems, or write-heavy,
      TTL based workloads where you want to free space everyday, deleting
      oldest data, and you're not concerned about read latency (i.e. read
      into a single bigger StoreFile).

      > Note: in this draft, I currently consider that we get free space from
      > the TTL behavior only, not really from the Delete operations.

      Proposal and benefits

      For such cases, StoreFiles could be organized and managed in a way
      that would compact:

      • recent StoreFiles with recent data
      • oldest StoreFiles that are concerned by TTL eviction

      By the way, it would help when scanning with a timestamp criterion.


      • hbase.hstore.compaction.sortByTS (boolean, default=false)
        This indicates if new behavior is enabled or not. Set it to
        false and compactions will remain the same than current ones.
      • hbase.hstore.compaction.ts.bucketSize (integer)
        If `sortByTS` is enabled, tells to HBase the target size of
        buckets. The lower, the more StoreFiles you'll get, but you should
        save more IO's. Higher values will generate less StoreFiles, but
        theses will be bigger and thus compactions could generate more


      Here is how a common store could look like after some flushes and
      perhaps some minor compactions:

             ,---, ,---,       ,---,
             |   | |   | ,---, |   |
             |   | |   | |   | |   |
             `---' `---' `---' `---'
              SF1   SF2   SF3   SF4
             \__________ __________/
         for all of these Storefiles,
         let say minimum TS is 01/01/2013
             and maximum TS is 31/03/2013

      Set the bucket size to 1 month, and that's what we have after

                      ,---, ,---,
                      |   | |   |
                ,---, |   | |   |
                |   | |   | |   |
                `---' `---' `---'
                 SF1   SF2   SF3
             |  minimum TS  |  maximum TS  |
       | SF1 |  03/03/2013  |  31/03/2013  | most recent, growing
       | SF2 |  31/01/2013  |  02/03/2013  | old data, "sealed"
       | SF3 |  01/01/2013  |  30/01/2013  | oldest data, "sealed"

      StoreFile selection

      • for minor compactions, current algorithm should already do the
        right job. Pick up `n` eldest files that are small enough, and
        write a bigger file. Remember, TSCompaction are designed for time
        series, so this 'minor selection' should leave "sealed" big old
        files as they are.
      • for major compactions, when all the StoreFiles have been selected,
        apply the TTL first. StoreFiles that are entirely out of time just
        don't need to be rewritten. They'll be deleted in one time,
        avoiding lots of IO's.

      New issues and trade-offs

      1. In that case (bucketSize=1 month), after 1+ year, we'll have lots
      of StoreFiles (and more generally after `n * bucketSize` seconds) if
      there is no TTL eviction. In any case, a clever threshold should be
      implemented to limit the maximum number of StoreFiles.

      2. If we later add old data that matches timerange of a StoreFile
      which has already been compacted, this could generate lots of IO's
      to reconstruct a single StoreFile for this time bucket, perhaps just
      to merge a few lines.


          Issue Links



              • Assignee:
                cf357 Adrien Mogenet
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                15 Start watching this issue


                • Created: