cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Ingalls <>
Subject Re: understanding memory footprint
Date Mon, 12 Aug 2013 18:14:47 GMT
I don't really need exact numbers, just a rough cost would be sufficient.  I'm running into
memory problems on my cluster, and I'm trying to decide if reducing the number of column families
would be worth the effort.  Looking at the rule of thumb from the wiki entry made it seem
like reducing the number of tables would make a big impact, but I'm running 1.2.8 so not sure
if it is still true.

Is there a new rule of thumb?

On Aug 12, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Robert Coli <> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Paul Ingalls <> wrote:
> At the core, my question really is:
> "Does the number of column families still significantly impact the memory footprint?
If so, what is the incremental cost of a column family/table?"
> This question has been asked about a kabillion times.
> Someone with more time than me to mess around with Java heap dumps should design a test
case and publish their findings.
> Even columnfamilies that take no write consume memory via their MBeans, etc...
> =Rob

View raw message