[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12915?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15900977#comment-15900977
]
Corentin Chary commented on CASSANDRA-12915:
--------------------------------------------
{code} this(range == null ? null : range.min, range == null ? null : range.max,
range == null ? 0 : range.count);{code}
I think it would be better not to make the assumption that null range == empty
range. Mostly because it isn't treated the same way in add()
{code} If either range is empty. Empty range is a subrange of (overlaps with)
any range.{code}
That's not how intersection usually works, shouldn't the result of an empty
range intersection with anything be an empty range ? (which means that an empty
range overlaps with nothing)
> 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)
