Is batch mutate atomic? If not, can we make it so?
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 4:11 AM, Tatu Saloranta tsalora...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, or maybe just clustering, since there is no branching structure.
It's quite commonly useful even on regular b-tree style storage (BDB
et al), as it can reduce
Quote from Gary:
batch_mutate makes no atomicity guarantees. It s intended to help avoiding
many round-trips.
It can fail half-way through leaving you with a partially completed batch.
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:39 AM, David Boxenhorn da...@lookin2.com wrote:
Is batch mutate atomic? If not, can
Is there a way to not use the Solr's web crawler (we have our own) and just
use Solr for indexing and serving content?
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Abhi Yerra ykabhi...@gmail.com wrote:
I created a web crawler using Cassandra as the datastore and push to a
bunch of Solr shards. It works
The next time you encounter such a problem, check with JMX
whether any compactions are pending on the sending node.
Compaction and anticompaction are run in the same stage IIRC,
so when a long-running compaction is in progress, all anticompaction
on the same node has to wait.
Martin
Oops. No crawler. My mistake.
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 10:56 AM, David Boxenhorn da...@lookin2.com wrote:
Is there a way to not use the Solr's web crawler (we have our own) and just
use Solr for indexing and serving content?
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Abhi Yerra ykabhi...@gmail.com
Ben Browning wrote...
[snip/]
...
I've been able to read columns out of Cassandra at
an order of magnitude higher than what you're seeing here but there
are too many variables to directly compare.
I've been reading with ConsistencyLevel QUORUM in my timings.
If I change to
Hi,
I am unclear about what the ReplicationFactor value means.
Does RF=1 mean that there is only one single node that has the data in the
cluster (actually no replication), or, does it mean, that there are two copies
of the data - one actual and one replica (as in replicated one time)?
I
to have two copies you need RF=2.
RF=0 doesn't make sense as far as I understand it.
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Per Olesen p...@trifork.com wrote:
Hi,
I am unclear about what the ReplicationFactor value means.
Does RF=1 mean that there is only one single node that has the data in the
I still have one open issue: My cluster has only 3 local nodes with 1 CF (5
rows).
The initial start works fine. I can see the replicated data and can do all
admin tasks I want, successfully.
Now I'm simulating a node failure by stopping Cassandra. I remove
(a) commit log
(b) content in system
Hi everyone.
I wanted to know if anybody has had any experience with cassandra on
flash storage. At work we have a cluster of 6 machines running
Tokyotyrant on flash-io drives (320GB) each, but performance is not what
we expected, and we'are having some issues with replication and
Hey All,
First of all I'll start with some questions on the default behavior of
get_range_slices method defined in the thrift API.
Given a keyrange with start-key kstart and end-key kend, assuming
kstartkend;
* Is it true that I'll get the range [kstart,kend) (kstart inclusive, kend
exclusive)?
There is no 'master' so all copies are replicas. RF=1 means 1 node
has the data, RF=2 means 2 do, etc.
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 4:16 AM, Per Olesen p...@trifork.com wrote:
Hi,
I am unclear about what the ReplicationFactor value means.
Does RF=1 mean that there is only one single node that has
Reads, ok.. What about Compactions? Is the cost of compacting going to be
ever increasing with the number of columns?
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 7:30 AM, Jonathan Ellis jbel...@gmail.com wrote:
#16 is very simple: it allows you to make very large rows. That is all.
Other things being equal,
But I am not comparing reading 1 column vs 100 columns. I am comparing reading
of 100 columns in loop iterations (100 consecutive calls) vs reading all 100 in
batch in one call. Doing the loop is faster than doing the batch call. Are you
saying this is not surprising?
- Original Message
On Jun 7, 2010, at 6:05 PM, Benjamin Black wrote:
There is no 'master' so all copies are replicas. RF=1 means 1 node
has the data, RF=2 means 2 do, etc.
Okay, thanks (and thanks to Ran also).
I guess 0 doesn't make sense then, and that RF=1 is a bad idea if I want some
protection against
It should take roughly 30 seconds (please clarify--not minutes) to
join the cluster.
Gary.
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 08:23, Stephan Pfammatter
stephan.pfammat...@logmein.com wrote:
I still have one open issue: My cluster has only 3 local nodes with 1 CF (5
rows).
The initial start works fine.
I was going to say, if ordered trees are your problem, Cassandra is
not your solution. Try building something with Berkeley DB.
Ian
On Jun 7, 2010, at 17:30, Tatu Saloranta tsalora...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 12:06 AM, David Boxenhorn da...@lookin2.com
wrote:
I wonder if
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Ian Soboroff isobor...@gmail.com wrote:
I was going to say, if ordered trees are your problem, Cassandra is not your
solution. Try building something with Berkeley DB.
Also -- while there are no official plans for this, there have been
discussions on Voldemort
I have a structure like this:
CF:Status
{
Row(Component42)
{
SuperColumn(1275948636203) (epoch millis)
{
sub columns...
}
}
}
The supercolumns are dropped in periodically by system A, which is using Hector.
System B uses a lightweight perl/Thrift client to reduce process
That would be surprising (and it is not what you said in the first
message). I suspect something is wrong with your test methodology.
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Arya Goudarzi agouda...@gaiaonline.com wrote:
But I am not comparing reading 1 column vs 100 columns. I am comparing
reading
20 matches
Mail list logo
