[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9932?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14680938#comment-14680938
]
Ariel Weisberg commented on CASSANDRA-9932:
-------------------------------------------
OK, I can be +1 if we plan on following up by adding unit tests for the derived
classes of AbstractBTreePartition and BTree. I am definitely not persuaded by
the test situation that they are done though, and it would be pretty bad for us
to release that way. If there is an opportunity to constrain scope somewhere
else and put more effort into this I would be in favor of that.
I ran the long btree test and and testOversizedMiddleInsert failed for me. I
couldn't find a job running the burn tests. I think we decided against it
because this stuff never changes (oops).
The combine coverage for BTreeTest and LongBTreeTest shows some stuff
uncovered. I will try and figure out a way to post it that format well.
> Make all partitions btree backed
> --------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-9932
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9932
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Core
> Reporter: Benedict
> Assignee: Benedict
> Fix For: 3.0.0 rc1
>
>
> Following on from the other btree related refactors, this patch makes all
> partition (and partition-like) objects backed by the same basic structure:
> {{AbstractBTreePartition}}. With two main offshoots:
> {{ImmutableBTreePartition}} and {{AtomicBTreePartition}}
> The main upshot is a 30% net code reduction, meaning better exercise of btree
> code paths and fewer new code paths to go wrong. A secondary upshort is that,
> by funnelling all our comparisons through a btree, there is a higher
> likelihood of icache occupancy and we have only one area to focus delivery of
> improvements for their enjoyment by all.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
