[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2901?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13067752#comment-13067752
]
Jonathan Ellis commented on CASSANDRA-2901:
-------------------------------------------
bq. we could partially parallelize large rows
Thinking about it a little more, CASSANDRA-1608 makes this unnecessary:
sstables will be kept small enough that you'll have a max of one large row, per
sstable. (So the multiple simultaneous sstable compactions code that we
already have takes care of that.)
So keeping to the plan of only parallelizing in-memory merges is fine.
> 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
> Fix For: 0.8.2
>
>
> 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). A thread pool (one per core?) merging
> corresponding rows from each input sstable. One thread doing serialize +
> writing the output (this has to wait for the merge threads to complete
> in-order, obviously). This should take us from being CPU bound on SSDs (since
> only one core is compacting) to being I/O bound.
> 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. You'll also want a small queue
> size for the serialize-merged-rows executor.
> 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.
> 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
