cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeff Jirsa (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-11218) Prioritize Secondary Index rebuild
Date Fri, 28 Oct 2016 17:02:58 GMT


Jeff Jirsa commented on CASSANDRA-11218:

Was chatting with [~beobal] on IRC briefly about starvation, and figured it's worth mentioning

09:52 <jeffj> also worth thinking about - within a type/level, is size the best comparator?
or hotness?
09:52 <jeffj> and if size, is largest first? or smallest first?
09:52 <jeffj> i'm not sure there's a universal right answer

[~krummas] and [~kohlisankalp] - do you have thoughts on ordering compaction tasks properly
within a type? Is there something that's universally more likely to be best for the user?
Hotness? Size of sstables (sorted smallest to largest, or largest to smallest)? As written,
it's doing the largest transactions first - do either of you have strong opinions that one
specific approach is right or wrong?

> Prioritize Secondary Index rebuild
> ----------------------------------
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-11218
>                 URL:
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Compaction
>            Reporter: sankalp kohli
>            Assignee: Jeff Jirsa
>            Priority: Minor
> We have seen that secondary index rebuild get stuck behind other compaction during a
bootstrap and other operations. This causes things to not finish. We should prioritize index
rebuild via a separate thread pool or using a priority queue.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message