cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marcus Eriksson (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-11623) Compactions w/ Short Rows Spending Time in getOnDiskFilePointer
Date Mon, 25 Apr 2016 07:28:13 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11623?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15256004#comment-15256004
] 

Marcus Eriksson commented on CASSANDRA-11623:
---------------------------------------------

I updated the patch and pushed it here: https://github.com/krummas/cassandra/commits/tpetracca/11623-trunk
- return chunkOffset
- rename the method to getEstimatedOnDiskBytesWritten
- reverted the test change as behavior should be exactly the same as before now

and tests are running here:
http://cassci.datastax.com/view/Dev/view/krummas/job/krummas-tpetracca-11623-trunk-dtest/
http://cassci.datastax.com/view/Dev/view/krummas/job/krummas-tpetracca-11623-trunk-testall/

And unless there is a dramatic compaction performance difference I think we should only commit
this to trunk

[~philipthompson] or [~mshuler] could you test that branch for compaction performance?

> Compactions w/ Short Rows Spending Time in getOnDiskFilePointer
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-11623
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11623
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Tom Petracca
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: compactiontask_profile.png
>
>
> Been doing some performance tuning and profiling of my cassandra cluster and noticed
that compaction speeds for my tables that I know to have very short rows were going particularly
slowly.  Profiling shows a ton of time being spent in BigTableWriter.getOnDiskFilePointer(),
and attaching strace to a CompactionTask shows that a majority of time is being spent lseek
(called by getOnDiskFilePointer), and not read or write.
> Going deeper it looks like we call getOnDiskFilePointer each row (sometimes multiple
times per row) in order to see if we've reached our expected sstable size and should start
a new writer.  This is pretty unnecessary.



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

Mime
View raw message