osdir.com


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Question about sketches aggregation in druid


 Thanks Himanshu!
I will update when we have the ConcurrentUnion in the DataSketches library, or earlier if we get interesting performance results with the union implementations.
    On Tuesday, July 24, 2018, 8:39:25 PM GMT+3, Himanshu <g.himanshu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:  
 
 This came up in the dev sync today.

Here is the gist.

- Union is necessary because we merge sketches in multiple cases e.g. at
query time, while persisting the final segment to be pushed to deep storage
, indexing user's data that itself contains sketches (e.g. someone ran
batch pipelines with Pig etc and created data that already has sketches in
it).
- SynchronizedUnion is necessary only because of realtime indexing and
querying use case as Gian mentioned ( it is a single writer - multiple
readers use case). If we have a ConcurrentUnion implementation that
performs as good as non-thread-safe Union for single thread, then we should
totally be able to remove SynchronizedUnion.

-- Himanshu

On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Eshcar Hillel <eshcar@xxxxxxxx.invalid>
wrote:

>  I think part of my confusion stems from the gap in the level of
> abstraction.Druid terminology focuses on aggregation.But in sketches there
> are two levels of aggregation:A sketch is a first level aggregation which
> holds the gist of the stream,
> A union is a second level aggregation which can aggregate sketches.
> Adding 2 questions to the questions below:
> The locks are used to synchronize the access to the union - I assume the
> union is a second level aggregation merging sketches that are built during
> ingestion.
> 3) If this is not the case then why does druid apply a union and not
> simply uses a sketch to aggregate the data?4) if it is the case then is it
> guaranteed that the merged sketches are immutable? otherwise wrapping the
> union with locks is not enough.
>
> I hope my questions make more sense now.
> Thanks,Eshcar
>
>    On Sunday, July 22, 2018, 4:15:02 PM GMT+3, Eshcar Hillel <
> eshcar@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  Thanks Gian - I was missing the part about aggregation during ingestion
> time roll-up.
> I looked at the SketchAggregator code and read the druid overview document
> let me verify that I got this right.Consider the best effort roll up mode:
> as events arrive they are ingested into multiple segments, call these
> s0...s9, but should belong to a single segment.Then a roll-up process ru
> aggregates s0...s9 one-by-one (?) into a single segment. During the roll up
> ru can be queried and therefore needs to be thread safe.
> 1) who is the "owner" of the roll up process? what triggers the roll-up
> thread? Is it considered as part of the ingestion/indexing time, or is it
> done at the background as a kind of an optimization?
>
> 2) The documents says "Data is queryable as soon as it isingested by the
> realtime processing logic." Does this means that queries can apply get to
> s0..s9? should they be thread safe as well?
>
>
>    On Thursday, July 19, 2018, 10:16:34 PM GMT+3, Gian Merlino <
> gian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  Hi Eshcar,
>
> I don't think I 100% understand what you are asking, but I will say some
> things, and hopefully they will be helpful.
>
> In Druid we use aggregators for two things: aggregation during ingestion
> (for ingestion-time rollup) and aggregation during queries. During queries
> the aggregators are only ever used by one thread at a time. At ingestion
> time, "aggregate" and "get" can be called simultaneously. It happens
> because "aggregate" is called from an ingestion thread (because we update
> running aggregators during ingestion), and "get" is called by query threads
> (because they "get" those aggregator values from the ingestion aggregator
> object to feed them to a query aggregator object). These calls are not
> synchronized by Druid, so individual aggregators need to do it themselves
> if necessary. There was some effort to address this systematically:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/3956, although it hasn't
> been finished yet. Check out some of the discussion on that patch for more
> background, and a question I just posted there: does it make more sense for
> ingestion-time aggregator thread-safety to be handled systematically (at
> the IncrementalIndex) or for each aggregator to need to be thread safe?
>
> If you're looking at "aggregate" and "get" in this file, those are the two
> that could get called simultaneously:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/blob/master/
> extensions-core/datasketches/src/main/java/io/druid/query/
> aggregation/datasketches/theta/SketchAggregator.java
>
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:11 AM Eshcar Hillel <eshcar@xxxxxxxx.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >  Apologies, I must be missing something very basic in how incremental
> > indexing is working.A sketch is by itself an aggregator - it can absorb
> > millions of updates before it exceeds its space limit or is flushed to
> disk.
> > I assumed the ingestion thread aggregates data in multiple sketches in
> > parallel, then at query time a union operation is invoked to merge
> relevant
> > sketches based on the attributes of the query, and when the union is
> > completed its result is returned to the user. But in such scenario there
> is
> > no need to call get before the union is completed.
> > This means there is another scenario where union is used and can be
> > queried while in the process of executing the merge. Is this to maintain
> > some in-memory hierarchy of aggregations? or for creating the snapshots
> > that are flushed to disk?
> > A better understanding of the use case will help in presenting a better
> > thread-safe solution.
> > Thanks,Eshcar
> >
> >    On Wednesday, July 11, 2018, 7:51:24 PM GMT+3, Gian Merlino <
> > gian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >  Hi Eshcar,
> >
> > > But even in a single-writer-single-reader scenario removing the lock
> can
> > increase the throughput of accesses to the object.
> >
> > Definitely worth trying this out, imo.
> >
> > > However, I don't understand why is the union object read before the
> > result is ready.
> >
> > It's used as part of incremental indexing: the idea is that we create
> > aggregates during ingestion time and we want those to be queryable even
> > while ingestion is still ongoing. So the ingestion thread will be calling
> > "aggregate" and a query thread will be calling "get" potentially
> > simultaneously.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:04 AM Eshcar Hillel <eshcar@xxxxxxxx.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >  Thanks Gian,
> > > This is also my understanding.But even in a single-writer-single-reader
> > > scenario removing the lock can increase the throughput of accesses to
> the
> > > object.
> > > If the union is only used to produce the result at query time then
> > > removing the lock would not affect ingestion throughput, but could
> > decrease
> > > query latency.However, I don't understand why is the union object read
> > > before the result is ready.
> > >    On Tuesday, July 10, 2018, 8:13:36 PM GMT+3, Gian Merlino <
> > > gian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >  Hi Eshcar,
> > >
> > > To my knowledge, in the Druid Aggregator and BufferAggregator
> interfaces,
> > > the main place where concurrency happens is that "aggregate" and "get"
> > may
> > > be called simultaneously during realtime ingestion. So if there would
> be
> > a
> > > benefit from improving concurrency it would probably end up in that
> area.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 2:10 AM Eshcar Hillel <eshcar@xxxxxxxx.invalid
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi All,
> > > > My name is Eshcar Hillel from Oath research. I'm currently working
> with
> > > > Lee Rhodes on committing a new concurrent implementation of the theta
> > > > sketch to the sketches-core library.I was wondering whether this
> > > > implementation can help boost the union operation that is applied to
> > > > multiple sketches at query time in druid.From what I see in the code
> > the
> > > > sketch aggregator uses the SynchronizedUnion implementation, which
> > > > basically uses a lock at every single access (update/read) of the
> union
> > > > operation. We believe a thread-safe implementation of the union
> > operation
> > > > can help decrease the inherent overhead of the lock.
> > > > I will be happy to join the meeting today and briefly discuss this
> > > option.
> > > > Thanks,Eshcar
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>