cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Radim Kolar (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-5727) Evaluate default LCS sstable size
Date Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:59:50 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-5727?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13722737#comment-13722737
] 

Radim Kolar commented on CASSANDRA-5727:
----------------------------------------

did you tried to measure standard compaction strategy to see if 160 MB LCS brings improvements?
                
> Evaluate default LCS sstable size
> ---------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-5727
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-5727
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Task
>          Components: Core
>            Reporter: Jonathan Ellis
>            Assignee: Daniel Meyer
>         Attachments: BytesRead_vs_LCS.png, ReadLatency_vs_LCS.png, Throughtput_vs_LCS.png,
UpdateLatency_vs_LCS.png
>
>
> What we're not sure about is the effect on compaction efficiency --
> larger files mean that each level contains more data, so reads will
> have to touch less sstables, but we're also compacting less unchanged
> data when we merge forward.
> So the question is, how big can we make the sstables to get the benefits of the
> first effect, before the second effect starts to dominate?

--
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