Is it possible to troubleshoot HBase batch puts? I'm using HBase batch puts of 5000 records at a time, and I would like to, on put failure, find out which row or rows is causing a problem and to log it.
The method HTable.batch(List actions) receives a list of Puts and returns an array in the same size of actions list (your puts list you gave to the function). If actions(i) failed, then the result[i] will be null.
Please note that when the failure inside batch() is due to maximum number of attempts to write, you need to catch RetriesExhaustedWithDetailsException, and call getExceptions(), to get the array which contains the mapping of the error to the put causing it.
See code here
Related
I am looking for some value in Excel spreadsheet but it's not obligatory thus in the middle of the flow I added parallel operation with two following parallel Set Variable steps: when the previous operation succeeds (var = excel_cell_value) and when it fails (var = default_value).
Unfortunately, when there is no such value in a spreadsheet the whole flow is marked as FAILED despite it ran successfully in fact.
How to solve that, guys? Thanks in advance
I need to remove duplicates from a flow I've developed, it can receive the same ${filename} multiple times. I tried using HBase_1_1_2_ClientMapCacheService with DetectDuplicate (I am using NiFi v1.4), but found that it lets a few duplicates through. If I use DistributedMapCache (ClientService and Server), I do not get any duplicates. Why would I receive some duplicates with the HBase Cache?
As a test, I listed a directory (ListSFTP) with 20,000 files on all cluster nodes (4 nodes) and passed to DetectDuplicate (using the HBase Cache service). It routed 20,020 to "non-duplicate", and interestingly the table actually has 20,000 rows.
Unfortunately I think this is due to a limitation in the operations that are offered by HBase.
The DetectDuplicate processor relies on an operation "getAndPutIfAbsent" which is expected to return the original value, and then set the new value if it wasn't there. For example, first time through it would return null and set the new value, indicating it wasn't a duplicate.
HBase doesn't natively support this operation, so the implementation of this method in the HBase map cache client does this:
V got = get(key, keySerializer, valueDeserializer);
boolean wasAbsent = putIfAbsent(key, value, keySerializer, valueSerializer);
if (! wasAbsent) return got;
else return null;
So because it is two separate calls there is a possible race condition...
Imagine node 1 calls the first line and gets null, but then node 2 performs the get and the putIfAbsent, now when node 1 calls putIfAbsent it gets false because node 2 just populated the cache, so now node 1 returns the null value from the original get... both of these look like non-duplicates to DetectDuplicate.
In the DistributedMapCacheServer, it locks the entire cache per operation so it can provide an atomic getAndPutIfAbsent.
I am using Hbase mapreduce to calculate a report.
In the reducer, I try to clear the 'result' column family, and then add a new 'total' column. But I find the column family is delete, but new data is not insert. It seems the Put action doesn't work. Do you know why?
sample code in reducer class:
Delete del = new Delete(rowkey.getBytes());
del.addFamily(RESULT);
context.write(new ImmutableBytesWritable(Bytes.toBytes(key.toString())), del);
Put put = new Put(rowkey.getBytes());
put.addColumn(RESULT, TOTAL, totalNum);
context.write(new ImmutableBytesWritable(Bytes.toBytes(key.toString())), put);
It is hbase limitation:
Deletes mask Puts
27.3.1. Deletes mask Puts
Deletes mask puts, even puts that happened after the delete was entered. See HBASE-2256. Remember that a delete writes a tombstone, which only disappears after then next major compaction has run. Suppose you do a delete of everything ⇐ T. After this you do a new put with a timestamp ⇐ T. This put, even if it happened after the delete, will be masked by the delete tombstone. Performing the put will not fail, but when you do a get you will notice the put did have no effect. It will start working again after the major compaction has run. These issues should not be a problem if you use always-increasing versions for new puts to a row. But they can occur even if you do not care about time: just do delete and put immediately after each other, and there is some chance they happen within the same millisecond.
I have a python (3.2) request that goes to MongoDB and the request itself is running fast enough. When I then perform an if statement check to see if any records were found it takes 50 times as long:
Line # Hits Time Per Hit % Time Line Contents
==============================================================
58 27623 6475988 234.4 1.7 itemInDB = db.mainData.find({"x":item[x]}).limit(1)
59
60 #existing item in db
61 27623 293419802 10622.3 77.6 if itemInDB.count():
What on earth is the cause for that if statement taking so long?! I presume there must be a better way to check if a record was found but google has come up empty.
Thanks for the help.
Perhaps a Better Way
If you're only interested in returning one value, you might want to use find_one instead of find. It will stop looking for values after one has been found, as opposed to find, which has to run through the collection:
itemInDB = db.mainData.find_one({"x":item[x]})
if itemInDB:
print("Item found")
else:
print("Item not found")
For Your Example
According to the PyMongo docs, when querying the count of a cursor, you can pass in a parameter (True or False) to take into account any skip or limit calls previously made to the cursor. The default for that parameter is False (namely, not taking those calls into account). That may be affecting the performance of your count query.
Gauging Query Performance
If you want to see how your query will be carried out by mongo, you can call explain on your cursor:
db.coll.find({"x":4}).explain()
The explain function is also implemented in PyMongo.
Turns out it was due to the find() function and not the if statement. I created an index on "x" (as I should have anyway). Changed the find to find_one and removed the .count() from the if statement. Overall 75% faster.
I have a code which gets all the records from a collection of a mongodb and then it performs some computations.
My program takes too much time as the "coll_id.find().each do |eachitem|......." returns only 300 records at an instant.
If I place a counter inside the loop and check it prints 300 records and then sleeps for around 3 to 4 seconds before printing the counter value for next set of 300 records..
coll_id.find().each do |eachcollectionitem|
puts "counter value for record " + counter.to_s
counter=counter +1
---- My computations here -----
end
Is this a limitation of ruby-mongodb api or some configurations needs to be done so that the code can get access to all the records at one instant.
How large are your documents? It's possible that the deseriaization is taking a long time. Are you using the C extensions (bson_ext)?
You might want to try passing a logger when you connect. That could help sort our what's going on. Alternatively, can you paste in the MongoDB log? What's happening there during the pause?