[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6106?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14303273#comment-14303273
]
Benedict commented on CASSANDRA-6106:
-------------------------------------
It seems that, since CASSANDRA-6108 has been shelved, and the alternative
follow ups aren't slated for anytime soon (including TimeUUID clientside
timestamps), that we should consider introducing this in 3.0 to fix (or limit)
the bug with resolution of conflicting data with the same timestamp. We should
also ask the driver maintainers to do this on their side for v3.0+ protocol
implementations.
> Provide timestamp with true microsecond resolution
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-6106
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6106
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Core
> Environment: DSE Cassandra 3.1, but also HEAD
> Reporter: Christopher Smith
> Assignee: Benedict
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: timestamps
> Fix For: 3.0
>
> Attachments: microtimstamp.patch, microtimstamp_random.patch,
> microtimstamp_random_rev2.patch
>
>
> I noticed this blog post: http://aphyr.com/posts/294-call-me-maybe-cassandra
> mentioned issues with millisecond rounding in timestamps and was able to
> reproduce the issue. If I specify a timestamp in a mutating query, I get
> microsecond precision, but if I don't, I get timestamps rounded to the
> nearest millisecond, at least for my first query on a given connection, which
> substantially increases the possibilities of collision.
> I believe I found the offending code, though I am by no means sure this is
> comprehensive. I think we probably need a fairly comprehensive replacement of
> all uses of System.currentTimeMillis() with System.nanoTime().
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
