[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9802?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14626612#comment-14626612
]
Sylvain Lebresne commented on CASSANDRA-9802:
---------------------------------------------
bq. Why are we not internally using our own page size as we know when it is an
aggregate.
I don't understand that sentence. Who are we in "our own page size"? (ps: have
you read CASSANDRA-9724 for context? I might have answered your question there)
> Better page size for aggregates in cqlsh
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-9802
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9802
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Sylvain Lebresne
> Assignee: Benjamin Lerer
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 3.x
>
>
> As discussed in CASSANDRA-9724, cqlsh uses a small page size (100) which
> makes sense for "normal" queries since you don't want to flood the terminal,
> but is quite sub-optimal for aggregates where the page size is used as the
> internal page size for the aggregate (there is thus no terminal flooding
> concerns and a page size of 100 is too low).
> We should thus make cqlsh use a bigger page size (stick with the python
> driver default for instance) when dealing with aggregate queries. According
> to Tyler:
> bq. it's not trivial, but it is possible. It should take a day or less of
> work.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
