phoenix-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Miles Spielberg <mi...@box.com>
Subject Re: Runtime DDL supported?
Date Thu, 08 Mar 2018 01:09:51 GMT
We found https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PHOENIX-3547, which seems to
be precisely our problem. We would want at least the option to use a bigint
rather than the int in the JIRA to accommodate massive growth. While we
intend to have many tenants, we don't intend to use the Phoenix "tenant_id"
to differentiate them, and instead manage them at our application layer, so
separate counters per Phoenix tenant would not help in our situation.

Miles Spielberg
Staff Software Engineer


O. 650.485.1102
900 Jefferson Ave
Redwood City, CA 94063

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:27 PM, James Taylor <jamestaylor@apache.org>
wrote:

> Please file a JIRA as it’d be feasible to change this limitation. The
> easiest way would be to have a separate counter for each tenant. Another
> way to reduce the number of indexes on tenant specific views would be to
> factor out common columns to global views and create indexes there.
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 3:40 PM Miles Spielberg <miles@box.com> wrote:
>
>> As we discussed, indexes across views are stored in a single HBase table
>> associated with the original table (_IDX_<tablename>). That's grand for
>> limiting the number of HBase tables created, but I just realized that the
>> actual index data within is differentiated by the 16-bit "viewIndexId",
>> which limits us to 64K indexes across all views for a given table. That's
>> concerning for our use case, especially if its a cumulative autoincrement
>> across all CREATE INDEX and DROP INDEX operations over the lifetime of the
>> base table.
>>
>> Is there any workaround for this? A quick grep across the source
>> indicates that the length of viewIndexId is currently hard-coded.
>>
>> At least, this limitation should probably be added to the list of caveats
>> and warnings at https://phoenix.apache.org/views.html.
>>
>> Miles Spielberg
>> Staff Software Engineer
>>
>>
>> O. 650.485.1102 <(650)%20485-1102>
>> 900 Jefferson Ave
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=900+Jefferson+Ave+%0D%0A%0D%0ARedwood+City+,+CA+94063&entry=gmail&source=g>
>> Redwood City
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=900+Jefferson+Ave+%0D%0A%0D%0ARedwood+City+,+CA+94063&entry=gmail&source=g>,
>> CA 94063
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=900+Jefferson+Ave+%0D%0A%0D%0ARedwood+City+,+CA+94063&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:42 AM, James Taylor <jamestaylor@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Another option would be to use dynamic columns[1] when querying across
>>> views. You’d have to disable column encoding [2] in this case.
>>>
>>> [1] http://phoenix.apache.org/dynamic_columns.html
>>> [2] http://phoenix.apache.org/columnencoding.html
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:57 PM Miles Spielberg <miles@box.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I believe each query in a UNION needs to have the same result tuple
>>>> format, which would work in this toy example, but in the general case each
>>>> view would have a different schema. We could make the result tuples conform
>>>> with each other by selecting NULL literals for every column except those
in
>>>> a view. It would get quite verbose though. Assuming f1,f2,f3 all have
>>>> incompatible types, were you suggesting something like this?
>>>>
>>>> Select f1, null, null from v1 where PK=?
>>>> Union all
>>>> Select null, f2, null from v2 where PK=?
>>>> Union all
>>>> Select null, null, f3 from v3 where PK=?
>>>>
>>>> We might just run separate parallel queries against each view and merge
>>>> the results client side. I would guess this should perform well since the
>>>> block cache can be leveraged for queries after the first.
>>>>
>>>> We could also use the HBase API to run a point row get. We'd have to
>>>> reimplement decoding for Phoenix's column values, which is not ideal but
>>>> quite doable.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 9:09 PM, James Taylor <jamestaylor@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Have you tried a UNION ALL query on (f1, f2, f3) instead? It seems
>>>> you’re on a good track with multiple views over a single (or handful) of
>>>> physical table(s).
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 6:45 PM Miles Spielberg <miles@box.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've done some experimentation with views, with a schema resembling
>>>>> this:
>>>>>
>>>>> create table t1(
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     pk bigint not null primary key
>>>>>>
>>>>>> );
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> create view v1(
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     f1 varchar
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ) AS SELECT * FROM t1;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> create INDEX v1_f1 ON v1(f1);
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> create view v2(
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     f2 varchar
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ) AS SELECT * FROM t1;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> create INDEX v2_f2 ON v2(f2);
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> create view v3(
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     f3 varchar
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ) AS SELECT * FROM t1;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> create INDEX v3_f3 ON v3(f3);
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the time we'll be accessing data via the indexed views, but
>>>>> we'd also like to be able to query all columns (f1, f2, f3) for a given
pk. At
>>>>> the HBase level, this should be doable as a point get on t1. The
>>>>> SQL-y way to express this would probably be with JOINs, but the EXPLAIN
>>>>> plan is not encouraging.
>>>>>
>>>>> > explain SELECT * from t1 left join v1 on v1.pk=t1.pk left join v2
>>>>>> on v2.pk=t1.pk left  join v3 on v3.pk=t1.pk where t1.pk=12345;
>>>>>> | CLIENT 1-CHUNK 1 ROWS 281 BYTES PARALLEL 1-WAY ROUND ROBIN POINT
>>>>>> LOOKUP ON 1 KEY OVER T1
>>>>>> |     PARALLEL LEFT-JOIN TABLE 0
>>>>>> |         CLIENT 1-CHUNK PARALLEL 1-WAY ROUND ROBIN FULL SCAN OVER
T1
>>>>>> |     PARALLEL LEFT-JOIN TABLE 1
>>>>>> |         CLIENT 1-CHUNK PARALLEL 1-WAY ROUND ROBIN FULL SCAN OVER
T1
>>>>>> |     PARALLEL LEFT-JOIN TABLE 2
>>>>>> |         CLIENT 1-CHUNK PARALLEL 1-WAY ROUND ROBIN FULL SCAN OVER
T1
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is pushing me back towards a design of having a single table,
>>>>> except for the issue of proliferating physical HBase tables for the
>>>>> indexes. Would you advise having a single table + a single view on it
>>>>> containing all columns, to coerce Phoenix to consolidate the indexes
into a
>>>>> single physical table? Are there other alternatives we should be
>>>>> considering?
>>>>>
>>>>> Miles Spielberg
>>>>> Staff Software Engineer
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> O. 650.485.1102 <(650)%20485-1102>
>>>>> 900 Jefferson Ave
>>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=900+Jefferson+Ave+%0D+%0D+Redwood+City,+CA+94063&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>>> Redwood City
>>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=900+Jefferson+Ave+%0D+%0D+Redwood+City,+CA+94063&entry=gmail&source=g>,
>>>>> CA 94063
>>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=900+Jefferson+Ave+%0D+%0D+Redwood+City,+CA+94063&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 3:27 PM, James Taylor <jamestaylor@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> All indexes on views are stored in a single physical table, so you'll
>>>>>> be ok in that regard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you could file bugs for any local index issues, we'd really
>>>>>> appreciate it. We've been steadily improving local indexes
>>>>>> (see PHOENIX-3941 for some recent perf improvements - applicable
for
>>>>>> multi-tenant tables in particular - these will appear in our 4.14
release).
>>>>>> Handling non covered columns is pretty isolated, so we should be
able to
>>>>>> fix bugs you find. Plus, there's a workaround - you can cover your
indexes
>>>>>> until any issues are fixed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Global, mutable indexes have had many improvements over the last
>>>>>> several releases too, but there's more operational overhead if/when
a data
>>>>>> table gets out of sync with it's index table (plus some amount of
>>>>>> configurable eventual consistency or index disablement). With local
indexes
>>>>>> (and HBase 1.3), this isn't possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> James
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Miles Spielberg <miles@box.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi James,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for the tips around reducing the number of physical tables
>>>>>>> while still maintaining the appearance of multiple tables via
view
>>>>>>> definitions. In our use case we don't anticipate having much
if any
>>>>>>> immutable data, so unfortunately I don't expect to be able to
take
>>>>>>> advantage of Phoenix's optimizations there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We're expecting many indexes, mostly likely with several per
logical
>>>>>>> per-tenant table. Given that global indexes are implemented as
physical
>>>>>>> HBase tables, will the view-oriented optimizations help very
much? We've
>>>>>>> done some experiments with local indexes on 4.13.2 and found
bugs,
>>>>>>> particularly with the rewrite optimization to read non-covered
columns from
>>>>>>> the main table, so we're not confident in using local indexes
to optimize
>>>>>>> queries. (I've looked through the 5.0-alpha release notes and
couldn't find
>>>>>>> anything related to this issue, so if desired I'll collect info
for a
>>>>>>> separate bug report.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Miles Spielberg
>>>>>>> Staff Software Engineer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> O. 650.485.1102 <(650)%20485-1102>
>>>>>>> 900 Jefferson Ave
>>>>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=900+Jefferson+Ave+%0D+%0D+Redwood+City,+CA+94063&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>>>>> Redwood City
>>>>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=900+Jefferson+Ave+%0D+%0D+Redwood+City,+CA+94063+%3Chttps://maps.google.com/?q%3D900%2BJefferson%2BAve%2B%250D%2B%250D%2BRedwood%2BCity,%2BCA%2B94063%26entry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg%3E&entry=gmail&source=g>,
>>>>>>> CA 94063
>>>>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=900+Jefferson+Ave+%0D+%0D+Redwood+City,+CA+94063&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:49 PM, James Taylor <
>>>>>>> jamestaylor@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Miles,
>>>>>>>> You'll be fine if you use views [1] and multi-tenancy [2]
to limit
>>>>>>>> the number of physical HBase tables. Make sure you read about
the
>>>>>>>> limitations of views too [3].
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's the way I've seen this modeled successfully:
>>>>>>>> - create one schema per use case. This will let you leverage
some
>>>>>>>> nice features in HBase for quotas and throttling. If you'll
have a single
>>>>>>>> use case, you don't have to worry about it. Read about namespaces
here [4]
>>>>>>>> and make sure to enable them before you start creating tables.
>>>>>>>> - define an immutable, multi-tenant base table that has TENANT_ID
+
>>>>>>>> TYPE_ID primary key. There are optimizations Phoenix does
over immutable
>>>>>>>> tables that you'll want to leverage (assuming you have use
cases that fit
>>>>>>>> into this category). This Phoenix table will be backed by
a
>>>>>>>> physical HBase table, but you won't execute Phoenix DML against
it. Think
>>>>>>>> of it as a kind of "abstract" type. Instead, you'll create
updatable views
>>>>>>>> over it.
>>>>>>>> - define a regular/mutable, multi-tenant base table that
has
>>>>>>>> TENANT_ID + TYPE_ID primary key. Same deal as above, but
this would be the
>>>>>>>> base table for any tables in which the rows change in place.
>>>>>>>> - define global views per "logical" table (against either
your
>>>>>>>> immutable base table or mutable base table depending on the
functionality
>>>>>>>> needed) with each view having a WHERE TYPE_ID='your type
identifier' clause
>>>>>>>> which adds specific columns to the primary key. This view
will be updatable
>>>>>>>> (i.e. you can execute DML against it). The columns you add
to your PK will
>>>>>>>> depend on your most common query patterns.
>>>>>>>> - optionally define indexes on these global views.
>>>>>>>> - each tenant can further extend or just use the global views.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FYI, lots of good performance/tuning tips can be found here[5].
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] https://phoenix.apache.org/views.html
>>>>>>>> [2] https://phoenix.apache.org/multi-tenancy.html
>>>>>>>> [3] https://phoenix.apache.org/views.html#Limitations
>>>>>>>> [4] https://phoenix.apache.org/namspace_mapping.html
>>>>>>>> [5] https://phoenix.apache.org/tuning_guide.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Miles Spielberg <miles@box.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We're looking at employing Phoenix in a multi-tenant
use case
>>>>>>>>> where tenants can create their own tables and indexes,
running into totals
>>>>>>>>> of tens-of-thousands of each. Is this a supported scenario,
or are we
>>>>>>>>> headed for trouble?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>

Mime
View raw message