[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9673?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14626143#comment-14626143
]
Stefania commented on CASSANDRA-9673:
-------------------------------------
[~iamaleksey] do we also need a BATCH_RESPONSE verb or should we just keep on
using REQUEST_RESPONSE? I've added BATCH_RESPONSE but it is functionally
identical to REQUEST_RESPONSE. The same goes for the handler,
WriteResponseHandler, which I have not duplicated instead. Another question is
whether we need to introduce a new stage or is it OK to keep on using
Stage.MUTATION?
I started writing dtest to check that we can still support older nodes, e.g.
2.2, but things are quite broken at the moment, for example in ReadCommand
serializer:
{code}
if (version < MessagingService.VERSION_30)
throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
{code}
cc [~slebresne] - do we already have a ticket or plan for fixing compatibility
with older nodes?
> Improve batchlog write path
> ---------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-9673
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9673
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Aleksey Yeschenko
> Assignee: Stefania
> Fix For: 3.0.0 rc1
>
>
> Currently we allocate an on-heap {{ByteBuffer}} to serialize the batched
> mutations into, before sending it to a distant node, generating unnecessary
> garbage (potentially a lot of it).
> With materialized views using the batchlog, it would be nice to optimise the
> write path:
> - introduce a new verb ({{Batch}})
> - introduce a new message ({{BatchMessage}}) that would encapsulate the
> mutations, expiration, and creation time (similar to {{HintMessage}} in
> CASSANDRA-6230)
> - have MS serialize it directly instead of relying on an intermediate buffer
> To avoid merely shifting the temp buffer to the receiving side(s) we should
> change the structure of the batchlog table to use a list or a map of
> individual mutations.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
