Keith, And now (having looked at the API docs) I realize that the difference in expected behavior between the devs flushing their BatchWriters and the 'flush' command in the shell ... thanks.
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Terry P. <[email protected]> wrote: > The developers are flushing their BatchWriter. > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Keith Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Terry P. <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Greetings all, >>> For a growing table that currently from zero to 70 million entries this >>> weekend, I'm seeing 4.4 million entries still in memory, though the client >>> programs are supposed to be flushing their entries. >>> >> >> Are you flushing the batch writer or the table? >> >> >>> >>> Is there a server-side setting to help reduce the number of entries that >>> are in memory (not yet flushed to disk)? Our system has fairly light >>> performance requirements, so I'm okay if a tweak may result in reduced >>> ingest performance. >>> >>> Thanks in advance, >>> Terry >>> >> >> >
