From user-return-10330-apmail-cassandra-user-archive=cassandra.apache.org@cassandra.apache.org Fri Nov 05 18:41:28 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 17593 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2010 18:41:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 5 Nov 2010 18:41:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 46765 invoked by uid 500); 5 Nov 2010 18:41:57 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 46742 invoked by uid 500); 5 Nov 2010 18:41:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 46734 invoked by uid 99); 5 Nov 2010 18:41:57 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Nov 2010 18:41:57 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.4 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_OBFUSCATE_10_20,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jerdavis.cassandra@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.172 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.161.172] (HELO mail-gx0-f172.google.com) (209.85.161.172) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Nov 2010 18:41:51 +0000 Received: by gxk27 with SMTP id 27so966673gxk.31 for ; Fri, 05 Nov 2010 11:41:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=A8XBHFyxeJctMr57dsTikKLOB2A7bVIeYdTG/mmxGUY=; b=SYPl9S6EGadekTGbmhp4TExyq/hLNEx4YiueL8Q2a7I9ccStQA/4tXJGoBXD7JhOlj 3Rs0lffODOqOZtesVnRb6yALpdBO8VU8cCVRUlRtbC8rdzjlILVxnnF91QurvE7U5YnA U6SfSVdtULFPN22cxHNBh8YweQKiIlKPMYVoA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=lyVVNul7H5ljNR7tp4cPJQR2rJAWoLDbPZeKCIPTS3PIGoXwuNRNW1/4SsCdRhHjOQ xgycy9sO0I/YP78JYsmuLQ63AhGrvsrOd4Msa+ViBYs6X9TE/9YUpjLYy2BtVqEUqZj7 rruSmSC/xmuOgpBMOqaRA6dI6H0WfA633bHyM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.41.10 with SMTP id o10mr1692017ago.103.1288982490071; Fri, 05 Nov 2010 11:41:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.120.15 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Nov 2010 11:41:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 11:41:30 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: row cache vs frequent row updates vs write through row cache From: Jeremy Davis To: user@cassandra.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016361e7bf87143be0494529f2a --0016361e7bf87143be0494529f2a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I saw in the Riptano "Tuning Cassandra" slide deck that the row cache can be detrimental if there are a lot of updates to the cached row. Is this because the cache is not write through, and every update necessitates creation of a new row? I see there is an open issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-860 for implementing write through in 0.8. -JD --0016361e7bf87143be0494529f2a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I saw in the Riptano "Tuning Cassandra" slide deck that the row c= ache can be detrimental if there are a lot of updates to the cached row. Is= this because the cache is not write through, and every update necessitates= creation of a new row?
I see there is an open issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-860= =A0 for implementing write through in 0.8.


-JD

--0016361e7bf87143be0494529f2a--