Re: Does partition size limitation still exists in Cassandra 3.10 given there is a B-tree implementation?

I'm almost done with a rebased trunk patch. Hit a few snags. I want nothing more to finish this thing... The latest issue was due to range tombstones and the fact that the deletion time was being stored in the index from 3.0 onwards. I hope to have everything pushed very shortly. Sorry for the

Re: Does partition size limitation still exists in Cassandra 3.10 given there is a B-tree implementation?

oh this looks like one I am looking for https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9754. Is this in Cassandra 3.10 or merged somewhere? On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Kant Kodali wrote: > Hi DuyHai, > > I am trying to see what are the possible things we can do to get

Re: Does partition size limitation still exists in Cassandra 3.10 given there is a B-tree implementation?

Hi DuyHai, I am trying to see what are the possible things we can do to get over this limitation? 1. Would this https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7447 help at all? 2. Can we have Merkle trees built for groups of rows in partition ? such that we can stream only those groups where

Re: Does partition size limitation still exists in Cassandra 3.10 given there is a B-tree implementation?

Yes the recommendation still applies Wide partitions have huge impact on repair (over streaming), compaction and bootstrap Le 10 mai 2017 23:54, "Kant Kodali" a écrit : Hi All, Cassandra community had always been recommending 100MB per partition as a sweet spot however does

Does partition size limitation still exists in Cassandra 3.10 given there is a B-tree implementation?

Hi All, Cassandra community had always been recommending 100MB per partition as a sweet spot however does this limitation still exist given there is a B-tree implementation to identify rows inside a partition?