cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Catalin Alexandru Zamfir (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Comment Edited] (CASSANDRA-8131) Short-circuited query results from collection index query
Date Fri, 17 Oct 2014 08:55:34 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8131?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14174860#comment-14174860
] 

Catalin Alexandru Zamfir edited comment on CASSANDRA-8131 at 10/17/14 8:54 AM:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's our version of Cassandra (if it helps):
{noformat}
# Note our keyspace has NetworkTopologyStrategy and RF: 3.

[cqlsh 5.0.1 | Cassandra 2.1.0 | CQL spec 3.2.0 | Native protocol v3]
Use HELP for help.
cqlsh>
{noformat}


was (Author: antauri):
Here's our version of Cassandra (if it helps):
{noformat}
[cqlsh 5.0.1 | Cassandra 2.1.0 | CQL spec 3.2.0 | Native protocol v3]
Use HELP for help.
cqlsh>
{noformat}

> Short-circuited query results from collection index query
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-8131
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8131
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Core
>         Environment: Debian Wheezy, Oracle JDK, Cassandra 2.1
>            Reporter: Catalin Alexandru Zamfir
>            Assignee: Sylvain Lebresne
>              Labels: collections, cql3, cqlsh, query, queryparser, triaged
>             Fix For: 2.1.0
>
>
> After watching Jonathan's 2014 summit video, I wanted to give collection indexes a try
as they seem to be a fit for a "search by key/values" usage pattern we have in our setup.
Doing some test queries that I expect users would do against the table, a short-circuit behavior
came up:
> Here's the whole transcript:
> {noformat}
> CREATE TABLE by_sets (id int PRIMARY KEY, datakeys set<text>, datavars set<text>);
> CREATE INDEX by_sets_datakeys ON by_sets (datakeys);
> CREATE INDEX by_sets_datavars ON by_sets (datavars);
> INSERT INTO by_sets (id, datakeys, datavars) VALUES (1, {'a'}, {'b'});
> INSERT INTO by_sets (id, datakeys, datavars) VALUES (2, {'c'}, {'d'});
> INSERT INTO by_sets (id, datakeys, datavars) VALUES (3, {'e'}, {'f'});
> INSERT INTO by_sets (id, datakeys, datavars) VALUES (4, {'a'}, {'z'});
> SELECT * FROM by_sets;
>  id | datakeys | datavars
> ----+----------+----------
>   1 |    {'a'} |    {'b'}
>   2 |    {'c'} |    {'d'}
>   4 |    {'a'} |    {'z'}
>   3 |    {'e'} |    {'f'}
> {noformat}
> We then tried this query which short-circuited:
> {noformat}
> SELECT * FROM by_sets WHERE datakeys CONTAINS 'a' AND datakeys CONTAINS 'c';
>  id | datakeys | datavars
> ----+----------+----------
>   1 |    {'a'} |    {'b'}
>   4 |    {'a'} |    {'z'}
> (2 rows)
> {noformat}
> Instead of receveing 3 rows, which match the datakeys CONTAINS 'a' AND datakeys CONTAINS
'c' we only got the first.
> Doing the same, but with CONTAINS 'c' first, ignores the second AND.
> {noformat}
> SELECT * FROM by_sets WHERE datakeys CONTAINS 'c' AND datakeys CONTAINS 'a' ;
>  id | datakeys | datavars
> ----+----------+----------
>   2 |    {'c'} |    {'d'}
> (1 rows)
> {noformat}
> Also, on a side-note, I have two indexes on both datakeys and datavars. But when trying
to run a query such as:
> {noformat}
> select * from by_sets WHERE datakeys CONTAINS 'a' AND datavars CONTAINS 'z';
> code=2200 [Invalid query] message="Cannot execute this query as it might involve data
filtering and thus may have unpredictable performance. 
> If you want to execute this query despite the performance unpredictability, use ALLOW
FILTERING"
> {noformat}
> The second column, after AND (even if I inverse the order) requires an "allow filtering"
clause yet the column is indexed an an in-memory "join" of the primary keys of these sets
on the coordinator could build up the result.
> Could anyone explain the short-circuit behavior?
> And the requirement for "allow-filtering" on a secondly indexed column?
> If they're not bugs but intended they should be documented better, at least their limitations.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message