cassandra-commits mailing list archives

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


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:
>             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:

View raw message