Gordon, It's worth pointing out that in 1.0 this should be greatly improved because now we have changed vclock behavior in relation to PUTs [1]. Essentially, client id now comes from the vnode, not externally, which leads to smaller/static vclock sizes even in the face of frequent updates.
I can't say with complete certainty that reducing the small/big vclock won't change your perf characteristics but I will say it is probably better to have smaller vclocks which in turn leads to smaller objects. Since pruning will happen more often I would imagine your PUT latencies could potentially go up a little. The best way to know is to measure. Another option is setting last_write_wins to true but this should only be used as a last effort and only if you truly don't care about siblings [2]. -Ryan [1]: Checkout the section titled "Get/Put Improvements" in the release notes. https://github.com/basho/riak/blob/riak-1.0.0/RELEASE-NOTES.org [2]: http://wiki.basho.com/Vector-Clocks.html#Siblings On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Gordon Tillman <[email protected]> wrote: > Morning All, > > I have noticed that with the default vclock settings the size of the > X-Riak-Vclock header gets really big really fast for certain objects that > are updated frequently. I am considering setting small_vclock to 4 and > big_vclock to 16 instead of the default values of 10 and 50, respectivly. > > I know that that are various performance optimizations that are based upon > certain default bucket settings and was wondering if this change would > adversely affect any of those. > > Many thanks! > > --gordon tillman > _______________________________________________ > riak-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com >
_______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
