cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonathan Haddad <...@jonhaddad.com>
Subject Re: DateTieredCompactionStrategy and static columns
Date Thu, 30 Apr 2015 20:55:46 GMT
I suspect this will kill the benefit of DTCS, but haven't tested it to be
100% here.

The benefit of DTCS is that sstables are selected for compaction based on
the age of the data, not their size.  When you mix TTL'ed data and non
TTL'ed data, you end up screwing with the "drop the entire SSTable"
optimization.  I don't believe this is any different just because you're
mixing in static columns.  What I think will happen is you'll end up with
an sstable that's almost entirely TTL'ed with a few static columns that
will never get compacted or dropped.  Pretty much the worst scenario I can
think of.



On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:21 AM graham sanderson <graham@vast.com> wrote:

> I have a potential use case I haven’t had a chance to prototype yet, which
> would normally be a good candidate for DTCS (i.e. data delivered in order
> and a fixed TTL), however with every write we’d also be updating some
> static cells (namely a few key/values in a static map<text.text> CQL
> column). There could also be explicit deletes of keys in the static map,
> though that’s not 100% necessary.
>
> Since those columns don’t have TTL, without reading thru the code code
> and/or trying it, I have no idea what effect this has on DTCS (perhaps it
> needs to use separate sstables for static columns). Has anyone tried this.
> If not I eventually will and will report back.

Mime
View raw message