cassandra-commits mailing list archives

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


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:
>             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,
> 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:

View raw message