[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-29460?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=18008539#comment-18008539
 ] 

Daniel Roudnitsky commented on HBASE-29460:
-------------------------------------------

HBase shell example showing inconsistency with memstore/flush:
{code:java}
> create 'test_versions', {NAME => 'cf1'}
> put 'test_versions', 'row1', 'cf1:col1', 'put1', 10
> put 'test_versions', 'row1', 'cf1:col1', 'put2', 20

# When both cells in memstore we can query put1
> get 'test_versions', 'row1', {COLUMN => 'cf1:col1', TIMERANGE=>[0, 15]}
COLUMN  CELL
 cf1:col1 timestamp=1969-12-31T19:00:00.010, value=put1
1 row(s)

# After flush same query returns no data 
> flush 'test_versions'
> get 'test_versions', 'row1', {COLUMN => 'cf1:col1', TIMERANGE=>[0, 15]}
COLUMN  CELL
0 row(s) {code}

> Inconsistent query results with timerange filter when there are multiple 
> column versions
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-29460
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-29460
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 3.0.0-beta-1, 2.5.12
>            Reporter: Daniel Roudnitsky
>            Assignee: Daniel Roudnitsky
>            Priority: Critical
>
> A team at $dayjob reported that a query with a timerange filter which was 
> previously returning a non-empty result began returning an empty result, with 
> no deletions or major compactions having occurred between the time the query 
> returned data and when it stopped returning data. Upon investigating we found 
> that the behavior of GET/SCAN with a timerange filter when there are multiple 
> versions of the same column lying around is inconsistent. 
> The server accumulates excess versions until flush/major compaction, so by 
> design there will be long periods of time where we have cells that physically 
> exist but have logically versioned out and should not be visible/queryable by 
> user (at least that seems to have been the intention?). The issue looks to 
> boil down to store scanner being able to return cells that have logically 
> versioned out when:
> # A timerange filter is specified AND
> # The number of cells that fall in the specified timerange which have not 
> logically versioned out does not exceed the maximum number of VERSIONS 
> configured on the column family. 
> Take the example of a user updating the same column over time with new 
> versions and occasionally running queries to get the past version of the 
> column that existed at a specific point in time. This user will very 
> organically run into this scenario where a cell falling in the timerange of 
> interest physically exists but has logically versioned out. Whether this 
> user’s timerange query returns the matching but logically versioned out cell 
> and how long it continues to do so varies depending on 
> * How many younger versions exist in the specified timerange (either in 
> memstore or hfile)
> * How the cell got flushed - if the cell was flushed in the same batch as 
> younger versions of the same column the query may return data before the 
> flush and stop returning data after the flush 
> * If the cell survived the flush process in (2), then the query may continue 
> to return data until major compaction, after which its physically versioned 
> out and the query stops returning data
> More concretely, take the base case with default VERSIONS=>1 where we do two 
> PUTS to the same column with PUT2 timestamp > PUT1 timestamp, and the two 
> cells are flushed independently to different hfiles. We observe a few 
> interesting things (hbase shell code in jira comment):
> # A query with a timerange filter including only PUT1 timestamp returns PUT1 
> if executed before major compaction - we return a cell that has logically 
> versioned out
> # A query to get all versions, without any timerange, only returns PUT2 - we 
> respect logical versioning here and do not return the PUT1 cell
> # A query to get all versions, with a timerange filter which includes both 
> PUT1 and PUT2 timestamps, only returns PUT2 - we respect logical versioning 
> here 
> # A query to get all versions, with a narrower timerange that includes only 
> PUT1 timestamp, returns PUT1. This is odd behavior from user perspective, 
> this query is identical to query 3 but with a time range that is a 
> subinterval of the one in query 3, one would reasonably expect the result of 
> the subinterval query to be a subset of the results when querying on the 
> larger interval, but the results are completely disjoint in this case. To 
> give a SQL example, one would not expect a SELECT * WHERE TIME < 10 to return 
> anything that would not appear in SELECT * WHERE TIME < 20, which is what 
> happens in our case
> # After we major compact , PUT1 has physically versioned out and query 1 will 
> stop returning a result
> We have additional query indeterminism when we have multiple versions in 
> memstore. We keep all (recent) versions in memstore until flushing, and one 
> can have a timerange query return logically versioned out cells while they 
> are in memstore. At flush time we will flush at most VERSIONS number of cells 
> - we do some “opportunistic” version pruning if we had more versions in 
> memstore than needed - but this means that before the flush one can have a 
> timerange query which returns data, and after the flush the same query no 
> longer returns data, and the behavior is dependent on the number of versions 
> that were in memstore at the time of flush. 
> I am of the (possibly naive) opinion that we should not return logically 
> versioned out cells by default so that query behavior is 
> consistent/predictable and users can reason about how things will behave 
> without deep diving HBase internals and understanding the corner cases 
> involved here. I am not sure how long timerange queries have behaved this 
> way, probably a long time, if we really want to preserve this behavior than I 
> think at the very least it should behave predictably - timing of PUTS/flushes 
> should not change query result and we should be clear in the docs that major 
> compaction can change query result (even if you do not do any deletes).



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)

Reply via email to