keith-turner commented on issue #3397: URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/issues/3397#issuecomment-1580990595
> I wonder if table.compaction.minor.idle should be replaced with a property like table.compaction.minor.interval. Do we still need to perform a minor compaction when idle for some specified time period if we are going to flush at some interval? The new property is not quite an interval because its based on write activity. In the absence of continuous write activity flushes would not occur at a set interval. The new property would flush based on time since first write to the in memory map. The current idle timeout flushes based time since last write to an in memory map. The idle timeout could still be useful for immediate scans are. For this case may not want to flush a tablet that is being actively written to and scanned, but once it has not been written for a while it makes sense to flush it. Maybe the new timeout makes sense for the new eventual scan use case and the idle timeout still makes sense for the existing immediate scan use case. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
