[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-51?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12699271#action_12699271
]
Eric Evans commented on CASSANDRA-51:
-------------------------------------
There is now instrumentation for memtable data size and column count, and a
counter for the number of memtable switches (see CASSANDRA-75). Combined with
the attached patch for the default/sample config that makes the applicable
thresholds more obvious to everyone, tuning a cluster to avoid exhausting the
JVM heap should be straightforward.
My vote would be to leave EBM as it is for now, and close this issue.
> Memory footprint for memtable
> ------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-51
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-51
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Environment: all
> Reporter: Sandeep Tata
> Assignee: Eric Evans
> Fix For: 0.3
>
> Attachments:
> 0001-more-conservative-defaults-for-memtable-constraints.patch
>
>
> The implementation of EfficientBidiMap(EBM) today stores the column in two
> place, a map and a sorted set. Both data structures store exactly the same
> values.
> I assume we're storing this twice so that the map can give us O(1) reads
> while the sortedset is important for efficient flush. Is this tradeoff
> important ? Do we want to store the data twice to get O(1) reads over
> O(log(n)) reads from sortedset? Is the sortedset implementation broken?
> Perhaps we should consider a configuration option that turns off the map --
> write performance will be slightly improved, read performance will be
> somewhat worse, and the memory footprint will probably be about half.
> Certainly sounds like a good alternative tradeoff.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
