phoenix-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Heather <>
Subject Re: missing rows after using
Date Tue, 08 Sep 2015 19:38:54 GMT

I've discovered that the cause is even simpler. With 100M rows, you get 
collisions in the primary key in the CSV file. An experiment (capturing 
the CSV file, and counting the rows with a unique primary key) reveals 
that the number of unique primary keys is about 500 short of the full 
100M. So the upserting is working as it should!

I don't know if there's a way round this, because it does produce rather 
suspicious-looking results. It might be worth having the program emit a 
warning to this effect if the parameter size is large, or finding a way 
to increase the entropy in the primary keys that are generated, to 
ensure that there won't be collisions.

It's a bit surprising no one has run into this before! Hopefully this 
script has been run on that many rows before... it seems a reasonable 
number for testing performance of a scalable database... (in fact I was 
planning to increase the row count somewhat).


On 08/09/15 20:16, James Taylor wrote:
> Hi James,
> Looks like currently you'll get a error log message generated if a row 
> is attempted to be imported but cannot be (usually due to the data not 
> being compatible with the schema). For, this would be the 
> client side log and messages would look like this:
>             LOG.error("Error upserting record {}: {}", csvRecord, 
> errorMessage);
> FWIW, we have a "strict" option for CSV loading (using the -s or 
> --strict option) which is meant to cause the load to abort if bad data 
> is found, but it doesn't look like this is currently checked (when bad 
> data is encountered). I've filed PHOENIX-2239 for this.
> Thanks,
> James
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:26 AM, James Heather 
> < <>> wrote:
>     I've had another go running the script to upsert
>     100,000,000 rows into a Phoenix table, and again I've ended up
>     with around 500 rows missing.
>     Can anyone explain this, or reproduce it?
>     It is rather concerning: I'm reluctant to use Phoenix if I'm not
>     sure whether rows will be silently dropped.
>     James

View raw message