cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aleksey Yeschenko (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-10571) ClusteringIndexNamesFilter::shouldInclude is not implemented, SinglePartitionNamesCommand not discarding the sstables it could
Date Fri, 30 Oct 2015 19:55:28 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10571?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14983185#comment-14983185
] 

Aleksey Yeschenko commented on CASSANDRA-10571:
-----------------------------------------------

+1

> ClusteringIndexNamesFilter::shouldInclude is not implemented, SinglePartitionNamesCommand
not discarding the sstables it could
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-10571
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10571
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Aleksey Yeschenko
>            Assignee: Sylvain Lebresne
>             Fix For: 3.0.0
>
>
> Now that we use {{SinglePartitionNamesCommand}} in more places - where we'd previously
use what is now {{SinglePartitionSliceCommand}} - not being able to skip sstables with non-overlapping
clusterings is actually a performance regression.
> {{SinglePartitionNamesCommand::queryMemtableAndDiskInternal}} should prune sstables based
on {{ClusteringIndexNamesFilter::shouldInclude}} output, and the latter must be replaced with
an actual implementation instead of a {{TODO}}.
> This is also a potentially a big regression in performance for counter writes (say, with
DTCS), since before 3.0, the read-before-write code would use {{collectAllData}}, and that
*was* pruning sstable with non-overlapping clusterings.



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

Mime
View raw message