Hi Jaanai,

Thanks for putting your thought. The behavior you describe is correct on the Hbase region sever side. The memory usage for blockcache and memstore will be high under such high throughput. But our phoenix client is on a gateway machine (no hbase region server sitting on it or any Hbase service on it), so not sure how to explain such high memory usage for upsert select without "limit" clause. The high memory usage behavior like all select results send to client machine, cached in client machine's memory, and then insert back to target table, which is not like the behavior that should happen, all of this should be done on the server side as the table schema is exactly the same. By the way, this happens on both Phoenix 4.7 and Phoenix 4.14.


On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 10:26 PM Jaanai Zhang <cloud.poster@gmail.com> wrote:

For the upsert without limit,  which will read the source table and write the target tables on the server side.  I think the higher memory usage is caused by using scan cache and memstore under the higher throughput.

   Jaanai Zhang
   Best regards!

Shawn Li <shawnlijob@gmail.com> 于2018年12月13日周四 上午10:13写道:
Hi Vincent,

So you describe limit will sent result to client side and then write to server, this might explain why upsert with limit is slower than without limit. But looks like it can't explain the memory usage? The memory usage on client machine is 8gb (without "limit") vs 2gb (with limit), sometime upsert without "limit" can even reach 20gb for big table.


On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 6:34 PM Vincent Poon <vincentpoon@apache.org> wrote:
I think it's done client-side if you have LIMIT.  If you have e.g. LIMIT 1000 , it would be incorrect for each regionserver to upsert 100, if you have more than one regionserver.  So instead results are sent back to the client, where the LIMIT is applied and then written back to the server in the UPSERT.

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 1:18 PM Shawn Li <shawnlijob@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Vincent,


The table creation statement is similar to below. We have about 200 fields. Table is mutable and don’t have any index on the table.



      state CHAR(2) NOT NULL,

      city VARCHAR,

      population BIGINT,


      CONSTRAINT my_pk PRIMARY KEY (state));





On Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 13:42 Vincent Poon <vincentpoon@apache.org wrote:
For #2, can you provide the table definition and the statement used?  e.g. Is the table immutable, or does it have indexes?

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:08 PM Shawn/Xiang Li <shawnlijob@gmail.com> wrote:



1.       Want to check what is underlying running for limit clause used in the following Upsert statement (is it involving any coprocessor working behind?):


                                  upsert into table2 select * from table1 limit 3000000;  (table 1 and table 2 have same schema)


              The above statement is running a lot slower than without “limit”  clause as shown in following, even the above statement upsert less data:


                                upsert into table2 select * from table1;


2.       We also observe memory usable is pretty high without the limit clause (8gb vs 2gb), sometimes for big table it can reach 20gb without using limit clause.  According to phoenix website description for upsert select “If auto commit is on, and both a) the target table matches the source table, and b) the select performs no aggregation, then the population of the target table will be done completely on the server-side (with constraint violations logged, but otherwise ignored).”


               My question is If everything is done on server-side, how come we have such high memory usage on the client machine?