cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Benedict (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-6106) Provide timestamp with true microsecond resolution
Date Thu, 24 Apr 2014 14:11:17 GMT


Benedict commented on CASSANDRA-6106:

Well, what I should have made clear is that I am willing to drop the monotonicity guarantees,
however I am -1 on your extra thread.

But I still think the monotonicity guarantees are good, and not so difficult to prove, so
if we can get somebody who doesn't have a newborn to contend with to take a look maybe that
wouldn't be a bad thing :)

In case it helps, here's a quick proof we can never give a whack value:

1. -100000<= adjustMicros<=100000
2. expire-adjustFrom=1000000000
2a. expireMicros-adjustFromMicros=1000000
3. adjustFromMicros<=micros<=expireMicros
4. delta = (adjustMicros * (micros-adjustFromMicros)) / (expireMicros-adjustFromMicros)
5. 2a ^ 3 ^ 4 -> expireMicros-adjustFromMicros > micros-adjustFromMicros -> |delta|
<= |adjustMicros|

i.e. the adjustment is definitely always less than adjustMicros, which is itself always less
than 100ms per second (per 1 and 2). So we can never give a totally whack result. Can do more
thorough proofs of other criteria, but I think this plus my other statement is enough to demonstrate
its safety.

> Provide timestamp with true microsecond resolution
> --------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-6106
>                 URL:
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Core
>         Environment: DSE Cassandra 3.1, but also HEAD
>            Reporter: Christopher Smith
>            Assignee: Benedict
>            Priority: Minor
>              Labels: timestamps
>             Fix For: 2.1 beta2
>         Attachments: microtimstamp.patch, microtimstamp_random.patch, microtimstamp_random_rev2.patch
> I noticed this blog post: mentioned
issues with millisecond rounding in timestamps and was able to reproduce the issue. If I specify
a timestamp in a mutating query, I get microsecond precision, but if I don't, I get timestamps
rounded to the nearest millisecond, at least for my first query on a given connection, which
substantially increases the possibilities of collision.
> I believe I found the offending code, though I am by no means sure this is comprehensive.
I think we probably need a fairly comprehensive replacement of all uses of System.currentTimeMillis()
with System.nanoTime().

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message