Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ACCUMULO-3602 BatchScanner optimization for AccumuloInputFormat #25

Closed
wants to merge 48 commits into from

Conversation

echeipesh
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@asfbot
Copy link

asfbot commented Mar 31, 2015

Accumulo-Pull-Requests #21 FAILURE
Looks like there's a problem with this pull request

@asfbot
Copy link

asfbot commented Apr 1, 2015

Accumulo-Pull-Requests #22 SUCCESS
This pull request looks good

…MULO-3602

Conflicts:
	core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/client/mapred/AbstractInputFormat.java
	core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/client/mapreduce/AbstractInputFormat.java
	core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/client/mapreduce/RangeInputSplit.java
@asfbot
Copy link

asfbot commented Apr 1, 2015

Accumulo-Pull-Requests #23 FAILURE
Looks like there's a problem with this pull request

@joshelser
Copy link
Member

Ack, I'm sorry, @echeipesh, I just broke you. RangeInputSplit.getInstance() is nonsensical. It should use the ClientConfiguration from the Job's configuration (which can only be gotten by the RecordReader using the TaskAttemptContext). LMK if that doesn't make sense and I can send you a patch to fix your branch.

@echeipesh
Copy link
Contributor Author

No worries, I was just looking through this, I see what happened.

@asfbot
Copy link

asfbot commented Apr 1, 2015

Accumulo-Pull-Requests #24 SUCCESS
This pull request looks good

scanner.setRange(rangeSplit.getRange());

// do this last after setting all scanner options
scannerIterator = scanner.iterator();
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Duplicated call to scanner.iterator(). Looks like you do it down below too?

@echeipesh
Copy link
Contributor Author

Summary of changes since last burst of comments:

  • Removed AccumuloInputSplit references in public API via method presented
  • Removed .setBatchScanThreads from configuration
  • Added .setBatchScan option to mapred InputFormat
  • Added better scaladoc for .setBatchScan
  • Covered all changes with @depricated since and @since tags
  • Made small improvement to a test to verify resumption of success after testing failure.

@asfbot
Copy link

asfbot commented Apr 16, 2015

Accumulo-Pull-Requests #43 SUCCESS
This pull request looks good


setupIterators(iterators, scanner);
protected List<IteratorSetting> jobIterators(JobConf job, String tableName) {
return getIterators(job);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not seeing where this is implemented. Am I just blind?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

n/m, pulled it into Eclipse and realized it's just me :)

@joshelser
Copy link
Member

Ok, two things I think need to be fixed. Everything else you fixed looks good!

  1. Restore the setupIterators(TaskAttemptContext, Scanner, RangeInputSplit) method (this is another one of those crappy edge cases, sorry).
  2. Fail if batchScan==true while autoAdjust==true

I pulled down the PR and ran it through japi which is how I noticed the first point. Otherwise it looks good from a compatibility sense for 1.6->1.7.

Seeing it in Eclipse brought up some checkstyle warnings still (unused imports). If you want to clean those up, that'd be great; otherwise, whomever merges can probably kill them all at once.

@keith-turner
Copy link
Contributor

I think this looks good. I am finished looking at it. I also think adding the autoAdjust sanity check and stating both are not supported in javadoc would be nice.

@asfbot
Copy link

asfbot commented Apr 17, 2015

Accumulo-Pull-Requests #47 FAILURE
Looks like there's a problem with this pull request

@asfbot
Copy link

asfbot commented Apr 17, 2015

Accumulo-Pull-Requests #48 FAILURE
Looks like there's a problem with this pull request

@joshelser
Copy link
Member

👍 from me

@keith-turner
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@asfbot
Copy link

asfbot commented Apr 17, 2015

Accumulo-Pull-Requests #49 FAILURE
Looks like there's a problem with this pull request

@asfbot
Copy link

asfbot commented Apr 17, 2015

Accumulo-Pull-Requests #51 FAILURE
Looks like there's a problem with this pull request

@asfbot
Copy link

asfbot commented Apr 17, 2015

Accumulo-Pull-Requests #52 SUCCESS
This pull request looks good

@joshelser
Copy link
Member

Hot diggity. I'll see if I can bring this down, run some of the UTs/ITs, squash the commits, and push it up. Thanks so much for your hard work, @echeipesh!!

@joshelser
Copy link
Member

Actually, compat is still broken with that setupIterators method. Do you want to fix that @echeipesh or should I just do when I apply the rest of your changes?

@asfbot
Copy link

asfbot commented Apr 17, 2015

Accumulo-Pull-Requests #54 SUCCESS
This pull request looks good

@joshelser
Copy link
Member

mvn verify -Psunny came back positive locally. Committed as 956a50e. Thanks for all of your hard work, @echeipesh!!

@joshelser
Copy link
Member

And, if you can @echeipesh, can you please close this? Because I squashed and didn't include the magic github markdown, I can't close the PR myself.

@echeipesh
Copy link
Contributor Author

@joshelser, awesome! Thank you for all the help guiding this along.

@echeipesh echeipesh closed this Apr 18, 2015
keith-turner pushed a commit to keith-turner/accumulo that referenced this pull request May 25, 2022
keith-turner pushed a commit to keith-turner/accumulo that referenced this pull request May 27, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants