[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-19018?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17813855#comment-17813855
]
Caleb Rackliffe commented on CASSANDRA-19018:
---------------------------------------------
There is a block of errors in the Python/in-JVM upgrade tests on my end, but
those are due to an issue in my CI infrastructure. The upgrade tests aren't too
relevant to this issue either way. Everything else looks fine. I'm going to run
the battery of Harry tests we're working on in CASSANDRA-18275 against the
trunk patch just make sure we have no regressions there...
[^ci_summary-1.html]
> An SAI-specific mechanism to ensure consistency isn't violated for
> multi-column (i.e. AND) queries at CL > ONE
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-19018
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-19018
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Consistency/Coordination, Feature/SAI
> Reporter: Caleb Rackliffe
> Assignee: Caleb Rackliffe
> Priority: Normal
> Fix For: 5.0-rc, 5.x
>
> Attachments: ci_summary-1.html, ci_summary.html,
> result_details.tar-1.gz, result_details.tar.gz
>
> Time Spent: 8h 50m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> CASSANDRA-19007 is going to be where we add a guardrail around
> filtering/index queries that use intersection/AND over partially updated
> non-key columns. (ex. Restricting one clustering column and one normal column
> does not cause a consistency problem, as primary keys cannot be partially
> updated.) This issue exists to attempt to fix this specifically for SAI in
> 5.0.x, as Accord will (last I checked) not be available until the 5.1 release.
> The SAI-specific version of the originally reported issue is this:
> {noformat}
> try (Cluster cluster = init(Cluster.build(2).withConfig(config ->
> config.with(GOSSIP).with(NETWORK)).start()))
> {
> cluster.schemaChange(withKeyspace("CREATE TABLE %s.t (k int
> PRIMARY KEY, a int, b int)"));
> cluster.schemaChange(withKeyspace("CREATE INDEX ON %s.t(a) USING
> 'sai'"));
> cluster.schemaChange(withKeyspace("CREATE INDEX ON %s.t(b) USING
> 'sai'"));
> // insert a split row
> cluster.get(1).executeInternal(withKeyspace("INSERT INTO %s.t(k,
> a) VALUES (0, 1)"));
> cluster.get(2).executeInternal(withKeyspace("INSERT INTO %s.t(k,
> b) VALUES (0, 2)"));
> // Uncomment this line and test succeeds w/ partial writes
> completed...
> //cluster.get(1).nodetoolResult("repair",
> KEYSPACE).asserts().success();
> String select = withKeyspace("SELECT * FROM %s.t WHERE a = 1 AND
> b = 2");
> Object[][] initialRows = cluster.coordinator(1).execute(select,
> ConsistencyLevel.ALL);
> assertRows(initialRows, row(0, 1, 2)); // not found!!
> }
> {noformat}
> To make a long story short, the local SAI indexes are hiding local partial
> matches from the coordinator that would combine there to form full matches.
> Simple non-index filtering queries also suffer from this problem, but they
> hide the partial matches in a different way. I'll outline a possible solution
> for this in the comments that takes advantage of replica filtering protection
> and the repaired/unrepaired datasets...and attempts to minimize the amount of
> extra row data sent to the coordinator.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
