CASSANDRA-14916
Hello guys, someone can check this jira please? I did not get a feedback from @Dinesh_Joshi for the moments :) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14916 Saludos Jean Carlo "The best way to predict the future is to invent it" Alan Kay
Re: CASSANDRA-14916
Ok that’s right Le ven. 1 févr. 2019 à 10:01, Jean Carlo a écrit : > Hello guys, someone can check this jira please? I did not get a feedback > from @Dinesh_Joshi for the moments :) > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14916 > > > Saludos > > Jean Carlo > > "The best way to predict the future is to invent it" Alan Kay > -- L'integrité de ce message n'étant pas assurée sur internet, VICTOR IBARRA ne peut être tenue responsable de son contenu en ce compris les pièces jointes. Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autorisée est interdite. Si vous n'êtes pas destinataire de ce message, merci de le détruire et d'avertir l'expéditeur. The integrity of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. VICTOR IBARRA can not therefore be considered liable for the contents including its attachments. Any unauthorized use or dissemination is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, then please delete it and notify the sender.
Re: SSTable exclusion from read path based on sstable metadata marked by custom compaction strategies
Interesting. Now that we have semiautomated upgrades, we are going to hopefully get everything to 3.11X once we get the intermediate hop to 2.2. I'm thinking we could also use sstable metadata markings + custom compactors for things like multiple customers on the same table. So you could sequester the data for a customer in their own sstables and then queries could effectively be subdivided against only the sstables that had that customer. Maybe the min and max would cover that, I'd have to look at the details. On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 8:11 PM Jonathan Haddad wrote: > In addition to what Jeff mentioned, there was an optimization in 3.4 that > can significantly reduce the number of sstables accessed when a LIMIT > clause was used. This can be a pretty big win with TWCS. > > > http://thelastpickle.com/blog/2017/03/07/The-limit-clause-in-cassandra-might-not-work-as-you-think.html > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 5:50 PM Jeff Jirsa wrote: > > > In my original TWCS talk a few years back, I suggested that people make > > the partitions match the time window to avoid exactly what you’re > > describing. I added that to the talk because my first team that used TWCS > > (the team for which I built TWCS) had a data model not unlike yours, and > > the read-every-sstable thing turns out not to work that well if you have > > lots of windows (or very large partitions). If you do this, you can fan > out > > a bunch of async reads for the first few days and ask for more as you > need > > to fill the page - this means the reads are more distributed, too, which > is > > an extra bonus when you have noisy partitions. > > > > In 3.0 and newer (I think, don’t quote me in the specific version), the > > sstable metadata has the min and max clustering which helps exclude > > sstables from the read path quite well if everything in the table is > using > > timestamp clustering columns. I know there was some issue with this and > RTs > > recently, so I’m not sure if it’s current state, but worth considering > that > > this may be much better on 3.0+ > > > > > > > > -- > > Jeff Jirsa > > > > > > > On Jan 31, 2019, at 1:56 PM, Carl Mueller < > carl.muel...@smartthings.com.invalid> > > wrote: > > > > > > Situation: > > > > > > We use TWCS for a task history table (partition is user, column key is > > > timeuuid of task, TWCS is used due to tombstone TTLs that rotate out > the > > > tasks every say month. ) > > > > > > However, if we want to get a "slice" of tasks (say, tasks in the last > two > > > days and we are using TWCS sstable blocks of 12 hours). > > > > > > The problem is, this is a frequent user and they have tasks in ALL the > > > sstables that are organized by the TWCS into time-bucketed sstables. > > > > > > So Cassandra has to first read in, say 80 sstables to reconstruct the > > row, > > > THEN it can exclude/slice on the column key. > > > > > > Question: > > > > > > Or am I wrong that the read path needs to grab all relevant sstables > > before > > > applying column key slicing and this is possible? Admittedly we are in > > 2.1 > > > for this table (we in the process of upgrading now that we have an > > > automated upgrading program that seems to work pretty well) > > > > > > If my assumption is correct, then the compaction strategy knows as it > > > writes the sstables what it is bucketing them as (and could encode in > > > sstable metadata?). If my assumption about slicing is that the whole > row > > > needs reconstruction, if we had a perfect infinite monkey coding team > > that > > > could generate whatever we wanted within some feasibility, could we > > provide > > > special hooks to do sstable exclusion based on metadata if we know that > > > that the metadata will indicate exclusion/inclusion of columns based on > > > metadata? > > > > > > Goal: > > > > > > The overall goal would be to support exclusion of sstables from a read > > > path, in case we had compaction strategies hand-tailored for other > > queries. > > > Essentially we would be doing a first-pass bucketsort exclusion with > the > > > sstable metadata marking the buckets. This might aid support of > superwide > > > rows and paging through column keys if we allowed the table creator to > > > specify bucketing as flushing occurs. In general it appears query > > > performance quickly degrades based on # sstables required for a lookup. > > > > > > I still don't know the code nearly well enough to do patches, it would > > seem > > > based on my looking at custom compaction strategies and the basic read > > path > > > that this would be a useful extension for advanced users. > > > > > > The fallback would be a set of tables to serve as buckets and we span > the > > > buckets with queries when one bucket runs out. The tables rotate. > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > -- > Jon
Re: SSTable exclusion from read path based on sstable metadata marked by custom compaction strategies
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 12:58 PM Carl Mueller wrote: > Jeff: so the partition key with timestamp would then need a separate index > table to track the appid->partition keys. Which isn't horrible, but also > tracks into another desire of mine: some way to make the replica mapping > match locally between the index table and the data table: > > So in the composite partition key for the TWCS table, you'd have app_id + > timestamp, BUT ONLY THE app_id GENERATES the hash/key. > > Huh? No, you'd have a composite partition key of app_id + timestamp ROUNDED/CEIL/FLOOR to some time window, and both would be used for hash/key. And you dont need any extra table, because app_id is known and the timestamp can be calculated (e.g., 4 digits of year + 3 digits for day of year makes today 2019032 ) > Thus it would match with the index table that is just partition key app_id, > column key timestamp. > > And then theoretically a node-local "join" could be done without an > additional query hop, and batched updates would be more easily atomic to a > single node. > > Now how we would communicate all that in CQL/etc: who knows. Hm. Maybe > materialized views cover this, but I haven't tracked that since we don't > have versions that support them and they got "deprecated". > > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 2:53 PM Carl Mueller > wrote: > > > Interesting. Now that we have semiautomated upgrades, we are going to > > hopefully get everything to 3.11X once we get the intermediate hop to > 2.2. > > > > I'm thinking we could also use sstable metadata markings + custom > > compactors for things like multiple customers on the same table. So you > > could sequester the data for a customer in their own sstables and then > > queries could effectively be subdivided against only the sstables that > had > > that customer. Maybe the min and max would cover that, I'd have to look > at > > the details. > > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 8:11 PM Jonathan Haddad > wrote: > > > >> In addition to what Jeff mentioned, there was an optimization in 3.4 > that > >> can significantly reduce the number of sstables accessed when a LIMIT > >> clause was used. This can be a pretty big win with TWCS. > >> > >> > >> > http://thelastpickle.com/blog/2017/03/07/The-limit-clause-in-cassandra-might-not-work-as-you-think.html > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 5:50 PM Jeff Jirsa wrote: > >> > >> > In my original TWCS talk a few years back, I suggested that people > make > >> > the partitions match the time window to avoid exactly what you’re > >> > describing. I added that to the talk because my first team that used > >> TWCS > >> > (the team for which I built TWCS) had a data model not unlike yours, > and > >> > the read-every-sstable thing turns out not to work that well if you > have > >> > lots of windows (or very large partitions). If you do this, you can > fan > >> out > >> > a bunch of async reads for the first few days and ask for more as you > >> need > >> > to fill the page - this means the reads are more distributed, too, > >> which is > >> > an extra bonus when you have noisy partitions. > >> > > >> > In 3.0 and newer (I think, don’t quote me in the specific version), > the > >> > sstable metadata has the min and max clustering which helps exclude > >> > sstables from the read path quite well if everything in the table is > >> using > >> > timestamp clustering columns. I know there was some issue with this > and > >> RTs > >> > recently, so I’m not sure if it’s current state, but worth considering > >> that > >> > this may be much better on 3.0+ > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Jeff Jirsa > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Jan 31, 2019, at 1:56 PM, Carl Mueller < > >> carl.muel...@smartthings.com.invalid> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Situation: > >> > > > >> > > We use TWCS for a task history table (partition is user, column key > is > >> > > timeuuid of task, TWCS is used due to tombstone TTLs that rotate out > >> the > >> > > tasks every say month. ) > >> > > > >> > > However, if we want to get a "slice" of tasks (say, tasks in the > last > >> two > >> > > days and we are using TWCS sstable blocks of 12 hours). > >> > > > >> > > The problem is, this is a frequent user and they have tasks in ALL > the > >> > > sstables that are organized by the TWCS into time-bucketed sstables. > >> > > > >> > > So Cassandra has to first read in, say 80 sstables to reconstruct > the > >> > row, > >> > > THEN it can exclude/slice on the column key. > >> > > > >> > > Question: > >> > > > >> > > Or am I wrong that the read path needs to grab all relevant sstables > >> > before > >> > > applying column key slicing and this is possible? Admittedly we are > in > >> > 2.1 > >> > > for this table (we in the process of upgrading now that we have an > >> > > automated upgrading program that seems to work pretty well) > >> > > > >> > > If my assumption is correct, then the compaction strategy knows as > it > >> > > writes the sstables what it is bucketing them as (and could encode >
Re: SSTable exclusion from read path based on sstable metadata marked by custom compaction strategies
Jeff: so the partition key with timestamp would then need a separate index table to track the appid->partition keys. Which isn't horrible, but also tracks into another desire of mine: some way to make the replica mapping match locally between the index table and the data table: So in the composite partition key for the TWCS table, you'd have app_id + timestamp, BUT ONLY THE app_id GENERATES the hash/key. Thus it would match with the index table that is just partition key app_id, column key timestamp. And then theoretically a node-local "join" could be done without an additional query hop, and batched updates would be more easily atomic to a single node. Now how we would communicate all that in CQL/etc: who knows. Hm. Maybe materialized views cover this, but I haven't tracked that since we don't have versions that support them and they got "deprecated". On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 2:53 PM Carl Mueller wrote: > Interesting. Now that we have semiautomated upgrades, we are going to > hopefully get everything to 3.11X once we get the intermediate hop to 2.2. > > I'm thinking we could also use sstable metadata markings + custom > compactors for things like multiple customers on the same table. So you > could sequester the data for a customer in their own sstables and then > queries could effectively be subdivided against only the sstables that had > that customer. Maybe the min and max would cover that, I'd have to look at > the details. > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 8:11 PM Jonathan Haddad wrote: > >> In addition to what Jeff mentioned, there was an optimization in 3.4 that >> can significantly reduce the number of sstables accessed when a LIMIT >> clause was used. This can be a pretty big win with TWCS. >> >> >> http://thelastpickle.com/blog/2017/03/07/The-limit-clause-in-cassandra-might-not-work-as-you-think.html >> >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 5:50 PM Jeff Jirsa wrote: >> >> > In my original TWCS talk a few years back, I suggested that people make >> > the partitions match the time window to avoid exactly what you’re >> > describing. I added that to the talk because my first team that used >> TWCS >> > (the team for which I built TWCS) had a data model not unlike yours, and >> > the read-every-sstable thing turns out not to work that well if you have >> > lots of windows (or very large partitions). If you do this, you can fan >> out >> > a bunch of async reads for the first few days and ask for more as you >> need >> > to fill the page - this means the reads are more distributed, too, >> which is >> > an extra bonus when you have noisy partitions. >> > >> > In 3.0 and newer (I think, don’t quote me in the specific version), the >> > sstable metadata has the min and max clustering which helps exclude >> > sstables from the read path quite well if everything in the table is >> using >> > timestamp clustering columns. I know there was some issue with this and >> RTs >> > recently, so I’m not sure if it’s current state, but worth considering >> that >> > this may be much better on 3.0+ >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Jeff Jirsa >> > >> > >> > > On Jan 31, 2019, at 1:56 PM, Carl Mueller < >> carl.muel...@smartthings.com.invalid> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > Situation: >> > > >> > > We use TWCS for a task history table (partition is user, column key is >> > > timeuuid of task, TWCS is used due to tombstone TTLs that rotate out >> the >> > > tasks every say month. ) >> > > >> > > However, if we want to get a "slice" of tasks (say, tasks in the last >> two >> > > days and we are using TWCS sstable blocks of 12 hours). >> > > >> > > The problem is, this is a frequent user and they have tasks in ALL the >> > > sstables that are organized by the TWCS into time-bucketed sstables. >> > > >> > > So Cassandra has to first read in, say 80 sstables to reconstruct the >> > row, >> > > THEN it can exclude/slice on the column key. >> > > >> > > Question: >> > > >> > > Or am I wrong that the read path needs to grab all relevant sstables >> > before >> > > applying column key slicing and this is possible? Admittedly we are in >> > 2.1 >> > > for this table (we in the process of upgrading now that we have an >> > > automated upgrading program that seems to work pretty well) >> > > >> > > If my assumption is correct, then the compaction strategy knows as it >> > > writes the sstables what it is bucketing them as (and could encode in >> > > sstable metadata?). If my assumption about slicing is that the whole >> row >> > > needs reconstruction, if we had a perfect infinite monkey coding team >> > that >> > > could generate whatever we wanted within some feasibility, could we >> > provide >> > > special hooks to do sstable exclusion based on metadata if we know >> that >> > > that the metadata will indicate exclusion/inclusion of columns based >> on >> > > metadata? >> > > >> > > Goal: >> > > >> > > The overall goal would be to support exclusion of sstables from a read >> > > path, in case we had compaction strategies hand-tailored for
Re: SSTable exclusion from read path based on sstable metadata marked by custom compaction strategies
FWIW you can skip 2.2 and go 2.1 -> 3.11. I would wait for 3.11.4 though. On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 12:53 PM Carl Mueller wrote: > Interesting. Now that we have semiautomated upgrades, we are going to > hopefully get everything to 3.11X once we get the intermediate hop to 2.2. > > I'm thinking we could also use sstable metadata markings + custom > compactors for things like multiple customers on the same table. So you > could sequester the data for a customer in their own sstables and then > queries could effectively be subdivided against only the sstables that had > that customer. Maybe the min and max would cover that, I'd have to look at > the details. > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 8:11 PM Jonathan Haddad wrote: > > > In addition to what Jeff mentioned, there was an optimization in 3.4 that > > can significantly reduce the number of sstables accessed when a LIMIT > > clause was used. This can be a pretty big win with TWCS. > > > > > > > http://thelastpickle.com/blog/2017/03/07/The-limit-clause-in-cassandra-might-not-work-as-you-think.html > > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 5:50 PM Jeff Jirsa wrote: > > > > > In my original TWCS talk a few years back, I suggested that people make > > > the partitions match the time window to avoid exactly what you’re > > > describing. I added that to the talk because my first team that used > TWCS > > > (the team for which I built TWCS) had a data model not unlike yours, > and > > > the read-every-sstable thing turns out not to work that well if you > have > > > lots of windows (or very large partitions). If you do this, you can fan > > out > > > a bunch of async reads for the first few days and ask for more as you > > need > > > to fill the page - this means the reads are more distributed, too, > which > > is > > > an extra bonus when you have noisy partitions. > > > > > > In 3.0 and newer (I think, don’t quote me in the specific version), the > > > sstable metadata has the min and max clustering which helps exclude > > > sstables from the read path quite well if everything in the table is > > using > > > timestamp clustering columns. I know there was some issue with this and > > RTs > > > recently, so I’m not sure if it’s current state, but worth considering > > that > > > this may be much better on 3.0+ > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jeff Jirsa > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 31, 2019, at 1:56 PM, Carl Mueller < > > carl.muel...@smartthings.com.invalid> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Situation: > > > > > > > > We use TWCS for a task history table (partition is user, column key > is > > > > timeuuid of task, TWCS is used due to tombstone TTLs that rotate out > > the > > > > tasks every say month. ) > > > > > > > > However, if we want to get a "slice" of tasks (say, tasks in the last > > two > > > > days and we are using TWCS sstable blocks of 12 hours). > > > > > > > > The problem is, this is a frequent user and they have tasks in ALL > the > > > > sstables that are organized by the TWCS into time-bucketed sstables. > > > > > > > > So Cassandra has to first read in, say 80 sstables to reconstruct the > > > row, > > > > THEN it can exclude/slice on the column key. > > > > > > > > Question: > > > > > > > > Or am I wrong that the read path needs to grab all relevant sstables > > > before > > > > applying column key slicing and this is possible? Admittedly we are > in > > > 2.1 > > > > for this table (we in the process of upgrading now that we have an > > > > automated upgrading program that seems to work pretty well) > > > > > > > > If my assumption is correct, then the compaction strategy knows as it > > > > writes the sstables what it is bucketing them as (and could encode in > > > > sstable metadata?). If my assumption about slicing is that the whole > > row > > > > needs reconstruction, if we had a perfect infinite monkey coding team > > > that > > > > could generate whatever we wanted within some feasibility, could we > > > provide > > > > special hooks to do sstable exclusion based on metadata if we know > that > > > > that the metadata will indicate exclusion/inclusion of columns based > on > > > > metadata? > > > > > > > > Goal: > > > > > > > > The overall goal would be to support exclusion of sstables from a > read > > > > path, in case we had compaction strategies hand-tailored for other > > > queries. > > > > Essentially we would be doing a first-pass bucketsort exclusion with > > the > > > > sstable metadata marking the buckets. This might aid support of > > superwide > > > > rows and paging through column keys if we allowed the table creator > to > > > > specify bucketing as flushing occurs. In general it appears query > > > > performance quickly degrades based on # sstables required for a > lookup. > > > > > > > > I still don't know the code nearly well enough to do patches, it > would > > > seem > > > > based on my looking at custom compaction strategies and the basic > read > > > path > > > > that this would be a useful extension for advanced users. > > > > >
Re: SSTable exclusion from read path based on sstable metadata marked by custom compaction strategies
I'd still need a "all events for app_id" query. We have seconds-level events :-( On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 3:02 PM Jeff Jirsa wrote: > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 12:58 PM Carl Mueller > wrote: > > > Jeff: so the partition key with timestamp would then need a separate > index > > table to track the appid->partition keys. Which isn't horrible, but also > > tracks into another desire of mine: some way to make the replica mapping > > match locally between the index table and the data table: > > > > So in the composite partition key for the TWCS table, you'd have app_id + > > timestamp, BUT ONLY THE app_id GENERATES the hash/key. > > > > > Huh? No, you'd have a composite partition key of app_id + timestamp > ROUNDED/CEIL/FLOOR to some time window, and both would be used for > hash/key. > > And you dont need any extra table, because app_id is known and the > timestamp can be calculated (e.g., 4 digits of year + 3 digits for day of > year makes today 2019032 ) > > > > > Thus it would match with the index table that is just partition key > app_id, > > column key timestamp. > > > > And then theoretically a node-local "join" could be done without an > > additional query hop, and batched updates would be more easily atomic to > a > > single node. > > > > Now how we would communicate all that in CQL/etc: who knows. Hm. Maybe > > materialized views cover this, but I haven't tracked that since we don't > > have versions that support them and they got "deprecated". > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 2:53 PM Carl Mueller < > carl.muel...@smartthings.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Interesting. Now that we have semiautomated upgrades, we are going to > > > hopefully get everything to 3.11X once we get the intermediate hop to > > 2.2. > > > > > > I'm thinking we could also use sstable metadata markings + custom > > > compactors for things like multiple customers on the same table. So you > > > could sequester the data for a customer in their own sstables and then > > > queries could effectively be subdivided against only the sstables that > > had > > > that customer. Maybe the min and max would cover that, I'd have to look > > at > > > the details. > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 8:11 PM Jonathan Haddad > > wrote: > > > > > >> In addition to what Jeff mentioned, there was an optimization in 3.4 > > that > > >> can significantly reduce the number of sstables accessed when a LIMIT > > >> clause was used. This can be a pretty big win with TWCS. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > http://thelastpickle.com/blog/2017/03/07/The-limit-clause-in-cassandra-might-not-work-as-you-think.html > > >> > > >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 5:50 PM Jeff Jirsa wrote: > > >> > > >> > In my original TWCS talk a few years back, I suggested that people > > make > > >> > the partitions match the time window to avoid exactly what you’re > > >> > describing. I added that to the talk because my first team that used > > >> TWCS > > >> > (the team for which I built TWCS) had a data model not unlike yours, > > and > > >> > the read-every-sstable thing turns out not to work that well if you > > have > > >> > lots of windows (or very large partitions). If you do this, you can > > fan > > >> out > > >> > a bunch of async reads for the first few days and ask for more as > you > > >> need > > >> > to fill the page - this means the reads are more distributed, too, > > >> which is > > >> > an extra bonus when you have noisy partitions. > > >> > > > >> > In 3.0 and newer (I think, don’t quote me in the specific version), > > the > > >> > sstable metadata has the min and max clustering which helps exclude > > >> > sstables from the read path quite well if everything in the table is > > >> using > > >> > timestamp clustering columns. I know there was some issue with this > > and > > >> RTs > > >> > recently, so I’m not sure if it’s current state, but worth > considering > > >> that > > >> > this may be much better on 3.0+ > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Jeff Jirsa > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Jan 31, 2019, at 1:56 PM, Carl Mueller < > > >> carl.muel...@smartthings.com.invalid> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > Situation: > > >> > > > > >> > > We use TWCS for a task history table (partition is user, column > key > > is > > >> > > timeuuid of task, TWCS is used due to tombstone TTLs that rotate > out > > >> the > > >> > > tasks every say month. ) > > >> > > > > >> > > However, if we want to get a "slice" of tasks (say, tasks in the > > last > > >> two > > >> > > days and we are using TWCS sstable blocks of 12 hours). > > >> > > > > >> > > The problem is, this is a frequent user and they have tasks in ALL > > the > > >> > > sstables that are organized by the TWCS into time-bucketed > sstables. > > >> > > > > >> > > So Cassandra has to first read in, say 80 sstables to reconstruct > > the > > >> > row, > > >> > > THEN it can exclude/slice on the column key. > > >> > > > > >> > > Question: > > >> > > > > >> > > Or am I wrong that the read path needs to grab all
Re: SSTable exclusion from read path based on sstable metadata marked by custom compaction strategies
Iterate over all of the possible time buckets. On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 1:36 PM Carl Mueller wrote: > I'd still need a "all events for app_id" query. We have seconds-level > events :-( > > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 3:02 PM Jeff Jirsa wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 12:58 PM Carl Mueller > > wrote: > > > > > Jeff: so the partition key with timestamp would then need a separate > > index > > > table to track the appid->partition keys. Which isn't horrible, but > also > > > tracks into another desire of mine: some way to make the replica > mapping > > > match locally between the index table and the data table: > > > > > > So in the composite partition key for the TWCS table, you'd have > app_id + > > > timestamp, BUT ONLY THE app_id GENERATES the hash/key. > > > > > > > > Huh? No, you'd have a composite partition key of app_id + timestamp > > ROUNDED/CEIL/FLOOR to some time window, and both would be used for > > hash/key. > > > > And you dont need any extra table, because app_id is known and the > > timestamp can be calculated (e.g., 4 digits of year + 3 digits for day of > > year makes today 2019032 ) > > > > > > > > > Thus it would match with the index table that is just partition key > > app_id, > > > column key timestamp. > > > > > > And then theoretically a node-local "join" could be done without an > > > additional query hop, and batched updates would be more easily atomic > to > > a > > > single node. > > > > > > Now how we would communicate all that in CQL/etc: who knows. Hm. Maybe > > > materialized views cover this, but I haven't tracked that since we > don't > > > have versions that support them and they got "deprecated". > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 2:53 PM Carl Mueller < > > carl.muel...@smartthings.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Interesting. Now that we have semiautomated upgrades, we are going to > > > > hopefully get everything to 3.11X once we get the intermediate hop to > > > 2.2. > > > > > > > > I'm thinking we could also use sstable metadata markings + custom > > > > compactors for things like multiple customers on the same table. So > you > > > > could sequester the data for a customer in their own sstables and > then > > > > queries could effectively be subdivided against only the sstables > that > > > had > > > > that customer. Maybe the min and max would cover that, I'd have to > look > > > at > > > > the details. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 8:11 PM Jonathan Haddad > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> In addition to what Jeff mentioned, there was an optimization in 3.4 > > > that > > > >> can significantly reduce the number of sstables accessed when a > LIMIT > > > >> clause was used. This can be a pretty big win with TWCS. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > http://thelastpickle.com/blog/2017/03/07/The-limit-clause-in-cassandra-might-not-work-as-you-think.html > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 5:50 PM Jeff Jirsa > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > In my original TWCS talk a few years back, I suggested that people > > > make > > > >> > the partitions match the time window to avoid exactly what you’re > > > >> > describing. I added that to the talk because my first team that > used > > > >> TWCS > > > >> > (the team for which I built TWCS) had a data model not unlike > yours, > > > and > > > >> > the read-every-sstable thing turns out not to work that well if > you > > > have > > > >> > lots of windows (or very large partitions). If you do this, you > can > > > fan > > > >> out > > > >> > a bunch of async reads for the first few days and ask for more as > > you > > > >> need > > > >> > to fill the page - this means the reads are more distributed, too, > > > >> which is > > > >> > an extra bonus when you have noisy partitions. > > > >> > > > > >> > In 3.0 and newer (I think, don’t quote me in the specific > version), > > > the > > > >> > sstable metadata has the min and max clustering which helps > exclude > > > >> > sstables from the read path quite well if everything in the table > is > > > >> using > > > >> > timestamp clustering columns. I know there was some issue with > this > > > and > > > >> RTs > > > >> > recently, so I’m not sure if it’s current state, but worth > > considering > > > >> that > > > >> > this may be much better on 3.0+ > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > -- > > > >> > Jeff Jirsa > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Jan 31, 2019, at 1:56 PM, Carl Mueller < > > > >> carl.muel...@smartthings.com.invalid> > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Situation: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > We use TWCS for a task history table (partition is user, column > > key > > > is > > > >> > > timeuuid of task, TWCS is used due to tombstone TTLs that rotate > > out > > > >> the > > > >> > > tasks every say month. ) > > > >> > > > > > >> > > However, if we want to get a "slice" of tasks (say, tasks in the > > > last > > > >> two > > > >> > > days and we are using TWCS sstable blocks of 12 hours). > > > >> > > > > > >> > > The problem is, this
