[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9949?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15092139#comment-15092139
]
Stefania commented on CASSANDRA-9949:
-------------------------------------
Thanks for clarifying the fix version.
Re. performance are you concerned by the loop on all cells in a column family?
We could approximate the min timestamp with the memtable creation time but I
don't think this is a good approximation and it's probably wrong if we receive
a partition from a remote host with an older timestamp. Storing the minimum
timestamp in a column family and keeping it up-to-date requires a bit of work
but we can go down this route if it is the correct choice. However I feel there
may be a different approximation that I am missing.
I also could use some hints on how to test this. Do you think a dtest is
achievable? I'm not so sure how easy it is to simulate a 'very-out-of-order'
write.
> maxPurgeableTimestamp needs to check memtables too
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-9949
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9949
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Local Write-Read Paths
> Reporter: Jonathan Ellis
> Assignee: Stefania
> Fix For: 2.1.x, 2.2.x
>
>
> overlapIterator/maxPurgeableTimestamp don't include the memtables, so a
> very-out-of-order write could be ignored
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
