Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cassandra-commits-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-commits-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 15C7C17463 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 07:45:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 6230 invoked by uid 500); 1 Jun 2015 07:45:18 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-commits-archive@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 6203 invoked by uid 500); 1 Jun 2015 07:45:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact commits-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list commits@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 6191 invoked by uid 99); 1 Jun 2015 07:45:18 -0000 Received: from arcas.apache.org (HELO arcas.apache.org) (140.211.11.28) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 07:45:18 +0000 Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 07:45:18 +0000 (UTC) From: "Marcus Eriksson (JIRA)" To: commits@cassandra.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-8340) Use sstable min timestamp when deciding if an sstable should be included in DTCS compactions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8340?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14567035#comment-14567035 ] Marcus Eriksson commented on CASSANDRA-8340: -------------------------------------------- I doubt we should introduce this now - having many hard-to-explain configuration options is bad thing. For your use case, you should probably just run a custom compaction strategy as I really hope it is not a common problem. For the people migrating from STCS, we should probably build a major compaction for DTCS that splits data based on its timestamps, but I have not heard any complaints about issues when migrating to DTCS from STCS since DTCS was introduced. > Use sstable min timestamp when deciding if an sstable should be included in DTCS compactions > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CASSANDRA-8340 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8340 > Project: Cassandra > Issue Type: Improvement > Reporter: Marcus Eriksson > Priority: Minor > Attachments: 8340-v2.diff, 8340.diff > > > Currently we check how old the newest data (max timestamp) in an sstable is when we check if it should be compacted. > If we instead switch to using min timestamp for this we have a pretty clean migration path from STCS/LCS to DTCS. > My thinking is that before migrating, the user does a major compaction, which creates a huge sstable containing all data, with min timestamp very far back in time, then switching to DTCS, we will have a big sstable that we never compact (ie, min timestamp of this big sstable is before max_sstable_age_days), and all newer data will be after that, and that new data will be properly compacted > WDYT [~Bj0rn] ? -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)