On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 5:05 AM, David Boxenhorn da...@taotown.com wrote:
Wouldn't it be the case that the once-used rows in your batch process would
quickly be traded out of the cache, and replaced by frequently-used rows?
Yes, and you'll pay a cache miss penalty for each of the replacements.
I guess I'm still feeling fuzzy on this because my actual use-case isn't so
black-and-white. I don't have any CFs that are accessed purely, or even
mostly, in once-through batch mode. What I have is CFs with more and less
data, and CFs that are accessed more and less frequently.
On Mon, May 2,
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 12:06 PM, David Boxenhorn da...@taotown.com wrote:
I guess I'm still feeling fuzzy on this because my actual use-case isn't so
black-and-white. I don't have any CFs that are accessed purely, or even
mostly, in once-through batch mode. What I have is CFs with more and
I'm having problems administering my cluster because I have too many CFs
(~40).
I'm thinking of combining them all into one big CF. I would prefix the
current CF name to the keys, repeat the CF name in a column, and index the
column (so I can loop over all rows, which I have to do sometimes, for
Shouldn't these kinds of problems be solved by Cassandra? Isn't there a
maximum SSTable size?
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 3:24 PM, shimi shim...@gmail.com wrote:
Big sstables, long compactions, in major compaction you will need to have
free disk space in the size of all the sstables (which you
If you have N column families you need N * memtable size of RAM to support
this. If that's not an option you can merge them into one as you suggest
but then you will have much larger SSTables, slower compactions, etc. I
don't necessarily agree with Tyler that the OS cache will be less
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Jake Luciani jak...@gmail.com wrote:
If you have N column families you need N * memtable size of RAM to support
this. If that's not an option you can merge them into one as you suggest
but then you will have much larger SSTables, slower compactions, etc.
I
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Jake Luciani jak...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 2:58 PM, shimi shim...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Jake Luciani jak...@gmail.com wrote:
If you have N column families you need N * memtable size of RAM to
support this. If
If you had one big cache, wouldn't it be the case that it's mostly populated
with frequently accessed rows, and less populated with rarely accessed rows?
In fact, wouldn't one big cache dynamically and automatically give you
exactly what you want? If you try to partition the same amount of memory
If you had one big cache, wouldn't it be the case that it's mostly
populated with frequently accessed rows, and less populated with rarely
accessed rows?
Yes.
In fact, wouldn't one big cache dynamically and automatically give you
exactly what you want? If you try to partition the same
10 matches
Mail list logo
