>
> I wouldn't use TWCS if there's updates, you're going to risk having
> data that's never deleted and really small sstables sticking around
> forever.
How do you risk having data sticking around forever when everything is
TTL'd?
If you use really large buckets, what's the point of TWCS?
No one
I wouldn't use TWCS if there's updates, you're going to risk having
data that's never deleted and really small sstables sticking around
forever. If you use really large buckets, what's the point of TWCS?
Honestly this is such a small workload you could easily use STCS or
LCS and you'd likely neve
TWCS is probably still worth trying. If you mean updating old rows in TWCS
"out of order updates" will only really mean you'll hit more SSTables on
read. This might add a bit of complexity in your client if your bucketing
partitions (not strictly necessary), but that's about it. As long as you're
n
Hi all,
I am trying to determine compaction strategy for our use case.
In our use case we will have updates on a row a few times. And we have a
ttl also defined on the table level.
Our typical workload is less then 1000 writes + reads per second. At the
max it could go up to 2500 per second.
We use
