Michael Kjellman commented on CASSANDRA-9754:

One idea I've had for a while is that we could switch the current Summary 
implementation to just having it be a Birch tree itself with all keys (not 
sampled). You could then do a lookup into the row index to get the offset to 
the columns index in what we call the "primary index" today. Then you'd have a 
tree per row like we have today.

> Make index info heap friendly for large CQL partitions
> ------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-9754
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9754
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: sankalp kohli
>            Assignee: Michael Kjellman
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 4.x
>         Attachments: gc_collection_times_with_birch.png, 
> gc_collection_times_without_birch.png, gc_counts_with_birch.png, 
> gc_counts_without_birch.png, 
> perf_cluster_1_with_birch_read_latency_and_counts.png, 
> perf_cluster_1_with_birch_write_latency_and_counts.png, 
> perf_cluster_2_with_birch_read_latency_and_counts.png, 
> perf_cluster_2_with_birch_write_latency_and_counts.png, 
> perf_cluster_3_without_birch_read_latency_and_counts.png, 
> perf_cluster_3_without_birch_write_latency_and_counts.png
>  Looking at a heap dump of 2.0 cluster, I found that majority of the objects 
> are IndexInfo and its ByteBuffers. This is specially bad in endpoints with 
> large CQL partitions. If a CQL partition is say 6,4GB, it will have 100K 
> IndexInfo objects and 200K ByteBuffers. This will create a lot of churn for 
> GC. Can this be improved by not creating so many objects?

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

Reply via email to