cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Coli (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-5727) Evaluate default LCS sstable size
Date Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:18:48 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-5727?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13708658#comment-13708658
] 

Robert Coli commented on CASSANDRA-5727:
----------------------------------------

Anecdotally, many people on @cassandra-user/#cassandra have been bitten by the current 5mb
size. The types of negative experiences they have seem to relate to too many SSTables for
"small" or "medium" data sizes. Even a relatively naive doubling of this default to 10mb seems
likely to be a win for most of these users.
                
> 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
>
> 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