>
>  ... compaction on its own jvm was also something I was thinking about, but
> then I realized even more JVM sharding could be done at the table level.


Compaction in it's own JVM makes sense. At the table level I'm not so sure
about. Gotta be some serious overheads from running that many JVM's.
Keyspace might be reasonable purely to isolate bad tables, but for the most
part I'd think isolating every table isn't that beneficial and pretty
complicated. In most cases people just fix their modelling so that they
don't generate large amounts of GC, and hopefully test enough so they know
how it will behave in production.

If we did at the table level we would inevitable have to make each
individual table incredibly tune-able which would be a bit tedious IMO.
There's no way for us to smartly decide how much heap/memtable space/etc
each table should use (not without some decent AI, anyway).
‚Äč

Reply via email to