[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13418?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15961710#comment-15961710
]
Jeff Jirsa commented on CASSANDRA-13418:
----------------------------------------
{quote}
What do you think about provide_overlapping_tombstones = "ignore" ? This is a
little would integrate nicely with the code and does not add yet another
compaction option (but sounds a little weird).
{quote}
As a table property instead of as a compaction property? It feels like a
compaction property to me, [~krummas] do you have any suggestions on how you
feel something like this should be done (or, if it should be done at all)?
> Allow TWCS to ignore overlaps when dropping fully expired sstables
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-13418
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13418
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Compaction
> Reporter: Corentin Chary
> Labels: twcs
>
> http://thelastpickle.com/blog/2016/12/08/TWCS-part1.html explains it well. If
> you really want read-repairs you're going to have sstables blocking the
> expiration of other fully expired SSTables because they overlap.
> You can set unchecked_tombstone_compaction = true or tombstone_threshold to a
> very low value and that will purge the blockers of old data that should
> already have expired, thus removing the overlaps and allowing the other
> SSTables to expire.
> The thing is that this is rather CPU intensive and not optimal. If you have
> time series, you might not care if all your data doesn't exactly expire at
> the right time, or if data re-appears for some time, as long as it gets
> deleted as soon as it can. And in this situation I believe it would be really
> beneficial to allow users to simply ignore overlapping SSTables when looking
> for fully expired ones.
> To the question: why would you need read-repairs ?
> - Full repairs basically take longer than the TTL of the data on my dataset,
> so this isn't really effective.
> - Even with a 10% chances of doing a repair, we found out that this would be
> enough to greatly reduce entropy of the most used data (and if you have
> timeseries, you're likely to have a dashboard doing the same important
> queries over and over again).
> - LOCAL_QUORUM is too expensive (need >3 replicas), QUORUM is too slow.
> I'll try to come up with a patch demonstrating how this would work, try it on
> our system and report the effects.
> cc: [~adejanovski], [~rgerard] as I know you worked on similar issues already.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
