[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6694?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13965487#comment-13965487
 ] 

Jonathan Ellis commented on CASSANDRA-6694:
-------------------------------------------

bq. Is it essential to move everything to the separate package ".data" ?

If I may bikeshed a bit, "data" is a fairly meaningless term in the Cassandra 
context and I would prefer to name it "cells" instead.  Otherwise, I think it's 
a reasonable refactor.

My initial reaction was, "moving things to different packages should totally be 
a separate commit" but the new interfaces don't share a whole lot with the old 
classes other than the name.  So even that doesn't really bother me, but if 
Pavel or Marcus still want that to facilitate review then it's a reasonable 
request.


> Slightly More Off-Heap Memtables
> --------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-6694
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6694
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Core
>            Reporter: Benedict
>            Assignee: Benedict
>              Labels: performance
>             Fix For: 2.1 beta2
>
>
> The Off Heap memtables introduced in CASSANDRA-6689 don't go far enough, as 
> the on-heap overhead is still very large. It should not be tremendously 
> difficult to extend these changes so that we allocate entire Cells off-heap, 
> instead of multiple BBs per Cell (with all their associated overhead).
> The goal (if possible) is to reach an overhead of 16-bytes per Cell (plus 4-6 
> bytes per cell on average for the btree overhead, for a total overhead of 
> around 20-22 bytes). This translates to 8-byte object overhead, 4-byte 
> address (we will do alignment tricks like the VM to allow us to address a 
> reasonably large memory space, although this trick is unlikely to last us 
> forever, at which point we will have to bite the bullet and accept a 24-byte 
> per cell overhead), and 4-byte object reference for maintaining our internal 
> list of allocations, which is unfortunately necessary since we cannot safely 
> (and cheaply) walk the object graph we allocate otherwise, which is necessary 
> for (allocation-) compaction and pointer rewriting.
> The ugliest thing here is going to be implementing the various CellName 
> instances so that they may be backed by native memory OR heap memory.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Reply via email to