[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6851?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14069324#comment-14069324
]
Russell Alexander Spitzer commented on CASSANDRA-6851:
------------------------------------------------------
The only thing I worry about is changing the signature on,
<bikeshed>
{code}
public Collection<Collection<SSTableReader>>
groupSSTablesForAntiCompaction(Collection<SSTableReader> sstablesToGroup, int
groupSize)
{code}
I was wondering if we might want multiple implementations, some of which may
not have a set group size. I know this is bikesheding, but maybe we want to
change the signature to maxGroupSize?
</bikeshed>
I'm +1 with everything else
> Improve anticompaction after incremental repair
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-6851
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6851
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Core
> Reporter: Marcus Eriksson
> Assignee: Russell Alexander Spitzer
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: compaction, lhf
> Fix For: 3.0
>
>
> After an incremental repair we iterate over all sstables and split them in
> two parts, one containing the repaired data and one the unrepaired. We could
> in theory double the number of sstables on a node.
> To avoid this we could make anticompaction also do a compaction, for example,
> if we are to anticompact 10 sstables, we could anticompact those to 2.
> Note that we need to avoid creating too big sstables though, if we
> anticompact all sstables on a node it would essentially be a major compaction.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
