[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12915?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15897545#comment-15897545
 ] 

Corentin Chary commented on CASSANDRA-12915:
--------------------------------------------

The fact that you didn't change the following line makes me thing that your 
patch doesn't really do what we need:
Assert.assertEquals(1L, builder.add(new LongIterator(new long[] 
{})).rangeCount());

Empty ranges really should not get ignored, and the changes made in 
https://github.com/ifesdjeen/cassandra/commit/78b1ff630536b0f48787ced74a66d702d13637ba#diff-22e58be2cfd42af959cb63c97de7eb3cR246
 show that the code do not behave like we would like it to.

> SASI: Index intersection with an empty range really inefficient
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-12915
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12915
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: sasi
>            Reporter: Corentin Chary
>            Assignee: Corentin Chary
>             Fix For: 3.11.x, 4.x
>
>
> It looks like RangeIntersectionIterator.java and be pretty inefficient in 
> some cases. Let's take the following query:
> SELECT data FROM table WHERE index1 = 'foo' AND index2 = 'bar';
> In this case:
> * index1 = 'foo' will match 2 items
> * index2 = 'bar' will match ~300k items
> On my setup, the query will take ~1 sec, most of the time being spent in 
> disk.TokenTree.getTokenAt().
> if I patch RangeIntersectionIterator so that it doesn't try to do the 
> intersection (and effectively only use 'index1') the query will run in a few 
> tenth of milliseconds.
> I see multiple solutions for that:
> * Add a static thresold to avoid the use of the index for the intersection 
> when we know it will be slow. Probably when the range size factor is very 
> small and the range size is big.
> * CASSANDRA-10765



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)

Reply via email to