[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2774?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13049912#comment-13049912
 ] 

Sylvain Lebresne commented on CASSANDRA-2774:
---------------------------------------------

bq. but as I stated in my last comment, at least we can be sure that the new 
approach guarantees some common agreement eventually. 

It is already the case with the current implementation. Once compaction has 
compacted the deletes, all node will reach common agreement.

bq. it would be nice if we achieve the agreement in case of quorum, but that's 
not my main argument

My main argument is that this patch slightly change the behavior here and there 
but I don't think it adds any tangible new guarantee that people can work with. 
On the other side, it adds a fairly heavy performance hit by adding a read 
before write on every replica (and though you won't necessary do a read for 
every write, you will do that read more often than not as soon as the set of 
counters you're incrementing is not small enough).

> one way to make counter delete work better
> ------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-2774
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2774
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>    Affects Versions: 0.8.0
>            Reporter: Yang Yang
>         Attachments: counter_delete.diff
>
>
> current Counter does not work with delete, because different merging order of 
> sstables would produces different result, for example:
> add 1
> delete 
> add 2
> if the merging happens by 1-2, (1,2)--3  order, the result we see will be 2
> if merging is: 1--3, (1,3)--2, the result will be 3.
> the issue is that delete now can not separate out previous adds and adds 
> later than the delete. supposedly a delete is to create a completely new 
> incarnation of the counter, or a new "lifetime", or "epoch". the new approach 
> utilizes the concept of "epoch number", so that each delete bumps up the 
> epoch number. since each write is replicated (replicate on write is almost 
> always enabled in practice, if this is a concern, we could further force ROW 
> in case of delete ), so the epoch number is global to a replica set
> changes are attached, existing tests pass fine, some tests are modified since 
> the semantic is changed a bit. some cql tests do not pass in the original 
> 0.8.0 source, that's not the fault of this change.
> see details at 
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cassandra-user/201106.mbox/%3cbanlktikqcglsnwtt-9hvqpseoo7sf58...@mail.gmail.com%3E
> the goal of this is to make delete work ( at least with consistent behavior, 
> yes in case of long network partition, the behavior is not ideal, but it's 
> consistent with the definition of logical clock), so that we could have 
> expiring Counters

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

Reply via email to