cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jonathan Ellis (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-4918) Remove CQL3 arbitrary select limit
Date Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:56:12 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-4918?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13498171#comment-13498171
] 

Jonathan Ellis commented on CASSANDRA-4918:
-------------------------------------------

How about we remove this server-side, but add it to cqlsh?  (Maybe even cut it down to 1K
rows there.)  That would address my worries about OOMing the server adequately.

                
> Remove CQL3 arbitrary select limit
> ----------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-4918
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-4918
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Sylvain Lebresne
>            Assignee: Sylvain Lebresne
>             Fix For: 1.2.0 rc1
>
>         Attachments: 4918.txt
>
>
> Let it be clear however that until CASSANDRA-4415 is resolved, it will put us in a situation
where it will be easy to write queries that timeout (and potentially OOM the server). That
being said, even with the auto-limit it's not too hard to write queries that timeout if you're
not at least a bit careful and so far we've always answer that by saying 'you have to be mindful
of how much data your query is asking for'. And while I'm all for adding protection against
OOMing the server like suggested by Jonathan on CASSANDRA-4304, I think the arbitrary auto-limit
is the worst possible solution to this problem.
> Note that until CASSANDRA-4415 is resolved I wouldn't be totally opposed to force people
to provide a LIMIT to select queries if we're really thing it will avoids lots of surprise,
though tbh I do think it would be enough to just continue to be vocal about the fact that
'you have to be mindful of how much data your query is asking for' and its follow-up 'you
should use an explicit LIMIT if in doubt about how much data will be returned'.
> But I am *strongly opposed* in keeping the current arbitrary limit because it makes very
little sense imo, and the little sense it makes will completely vanish once CASSANDRA-4415
is here, and I don't want to break the API and do a CQL4 to be able to remove that limit later.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

Mime
View raw message