Sigh, it is a bit grating. I (genuinely) appreciate your acknowledgement of that. Though, I didn't intend for the question to be "about" supercolumns.
It is possible I'm hitting an odd edge case though I'm having trouble reproducing the issue in a controlled environment since there seems to be a timing element to it, or at least it's not consistently happening. I haven't been able to reproduce it on a single node test cluster. I'm moving on to test a larger one now. On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Robert Coli <rc...@eventbrite.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Owen Kim <ohech...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm aware. I've had the system up since pre-composite columns and haven't >> had the cycles to do a major data and schema migration. >> >> And that's not "slightly" non-responsive. >> > > "There may be unknown bugs in the code you're using, especially because no > one else uses it" is in fact slightly responsive. While I'm sure it does > grate to be told that one should not be using a feature one cannot choose > to not-use, I consider "don't use them" responsive to every question about > supercolumns since 2010, unless the asker pre-emptively states they know > this fact. I assure you that my meta-response is infinitely more responsive > than the total non-response you were otherwise likely to receive... > > ... aaaaaaanyway ... > > Probably you are just hitting an edge case in the 1.2 era rewrite of > supercolumns which no one else has ever encountered because no one uses > them. For the record, I do not believe either of your hypotheses (key cache > or slice queries having different guarantees) are likely to be implicated. > One of them is trivial to test : create a test CF with the key cache > disabled and try to repro there. > > Instead of attempting to debug by yourself, or on the user list (which > will be full of people not-using supercolumns) I suggest filing an JIRA > with reproduction steps, and then mentioning the URL on this thread for > future googlers. > > =Rob > > >
