Wouldn’t that still try to read the index on the disk? So you would just
potentially have all keys on the memory and on the disk and reading would first
happen in memory and then on the disk and only after that you would read the
So you wouldn’t gain much, right?
> On 2 Feb 2018, at 02:25, Nate McCall <n...@thelastpickle.com> wrote:
> Another was the crazy idea I started with of setting min_index_interval to 1.
> My guess was that this would cause it to read all index entries, and
> effectively have them all cached permanently. And it would read them straight
> out of the SSTables on every restart. Would this work? Other than probably
> causing a really long startup time, are there issues with this?
> I've never tried that. It sounds like you understand the potential impact on
> memory and startup time. If you have the data in such a way that you can
> easily experiment, I would like to see a breakdown of the impact on response
> time vs. memory usage as well as where the point of diminishing returns is on
> turning this down towards 1 (I think there will be a sweet spot somewhere).