You can increase it if you're sure that it fits your use case. For an
explanation of why batch size vs number of statements, see the discussion
in CASSANDRA-6487. Cheers!

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Tim Moore <> wrote:

> Hi,
> I'm trying to understand some of the details of the
> batch_size_warn_threshold_in_kb/batch_size_fail_threshold_in_kb settings.
> Specifically, why are the thresholds measured in kb rather than the number
> of partitions affected?
> We have run into the limit in a situation where there is a batch with
> writes to two tables (because we wanted to ensure atomicity of the writes
> in the case of a failure). In some situations, the data inserted into one
> of these tables can be large enough to push the total batch size over the
> limit.
> In this specific case, we were able to rewrite things so that it could be
> split into separate statement executions with the application handling
> retry on failure so atomicity is not needed. It left us wondering, however,
> whether executing this as a batch was really problematic, or if the warning
> from Cassandra was spurious in this case.
> Is it really the total data size that matters, or just the number of
> affected partitions?
> Thanks,
> Tim
> --
> Tim Moore
> *Senior Engineer, Lagom, Lightbend, Inc.*
> +61 420 981 589 <+61%20420%20981%20589>
> Skype: timothy.m.moore
> <>

Reply via email to