[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2901?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13065851#comment-13065851
]
Wojciech Meler commented on CASSANDRA-2901:
-------------------------------------------
Maybe it would be nice to spawn separate compaction process?
It is quite GC-intensive operation, so maybe it make sense to separate it from
server?
It would also be nice to have cli tool to compact files without cassandra
server for backup purpose - why not spawn such tool from server?
> Allow taking advantage of multiple cores while compacting a single CF
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-2901
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2901
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Core
> Reporter: Jonathan Ellis
> Priority: Minor
>
> Moved from CASSANDRA-1876:
> There are five stages: read, deserialize, merge, serialize, and write. We
> probably want to continue doing read+deserialize and serialize+write
> together, or you waste a lot copying to/from buffers.
> So, what I would suggest is: one thread per input sstable doing read +
> deserialize (a row at a time). One thread merging corresponding rows from
> each input sstable. One thread doing serialize + writing the output. This
> should give us between 2x and 3x speedup (depending how much doing the merge
> on another thread than write saves us).
> This will require roughly 2x the memory, to allow the reader threads to work
> ahead of the merge stage. (I.e. for each input sstable you will have up to
> one row in a queue waiting to be merged, and the reader thread working on the
> next.) Seems quite reasonable on that front.
> Multithreaded compaction should be either on or off. It doesn't make sense to
> try to do things halfway (by doing the reads with a
> threadpool whose size you can grow/shrink, for instance): we still have
> compaction threads tuned to low priority, by default, so the impact on the
> rest of the system won't be very different. Nor do we expect to have so many
> input sstables that we lose a lot in context switching between reader
> threads. (If this is a concern, we already have a tunable to limit the number
> of sstables merged at a time in a single CF.)
> IMO it's acceptable to punt completely on rows that are larger than memory,
> and fall back to the old non-parallel code there. I don't see any sane way to
> parallelize large-row compactions.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
