[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1608?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12925179#action_12925179
 ] 

Stu Hood commented on CASSANDRA-1608:
-------------------------------------

> But I am concerned with strategies that imply having to keep significant 
> amounts of data over time, such as anything based
> on row-level frequency/recency of access.
Although it probably sounds like I have bloom filter fever, we could use a 
bloom filter for this as well: filters based on multisets, (spectral bloom 
filters, count min sketches), allow storing approximate counts for values. The 
access counts for rows for the lifetime of a memtable could be stored in a 
filter attached to the memtable: at read time, the approximate access count of 
the row key could be checked against a threshold of accesses, and be stored in 
the memtable as superseding.

> Redesigned Compaction
> ---------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-1608
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1608
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Core
>            Reporter: Chris Goffinet
>             Fix For: 0.7.1
>
>
> After seeing the I/O issues in CASSANDRA-1470, I've been doing some more 
> thinking on this subject that I wanted to lay out.
> I propose we redo the concept of how compaction works in Cassandra. At the 
> moment, compaction is kicked off based on a write access pattern, not read 
> access pattern. In most cases, you want the opposite. You want to be able to 
> track how well each SSTable is performing in the system. If we were to keep 
> statistics in-memory of each SSTable, prioritize them based on most accessed, 
> and bloom filter hit/miss ratios, we could intelligently group sstables that 
> are being read most often and schedule them for compaction. We could also 
> schedule lower priority maintenance on SSTable's not often accessed.
> I also propose we limit the size of each SSTable to a fix sized, that gives 
> us the ability to  better utilize our bloom filters in a predictable manner. 
> At the moment after a certain size, the bloom filters become less reliable. 
> This would also allow us to group data most accessed. Currently the size of 
> an SSTable can grow to a point where large portions of the data might not 
> actually be accessed as often.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

Reply via email to