@Hannu this was based on the assumption that if we receive a read for a key
that is sampled, it'll be treated as cached and won't go to the index on
disk. Part of my question was whether that's the case, I'm not sure.

Btw I ended up giving up on this, trying the key cache route already showed
that it would require more memory than we have available. And even then,
the performance started to tank; we saw irqbalance and other processes peg
the CPU even with not too much load, so there was some numa-related problem
there that I don't have time to look into.

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 12:42 AM, Hannu Kröger <hkro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 sstable.
> So you wouldn’t gain much, right?
> Hannu
> 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).

Dan Kinder
Principal Software Engineer
Turnitin – www.turnitin.com

Reply via email to