Thanks guys. I think I'll use the initial scan then but limit the rows used to a smaller subset that I know should fit in the in-memory part of the block cache.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]>wrote: > It's touchy... what if the data set doesn't fit in the in-memory's > part of the block cache (which is 25%)? Maybe the user only wants to > keep "in-memory" those edits that are being used? What about the IO > hit of assigning those regions at startup that would now need to read > X GBs all at once? > > FWIW I've never been a fan of that setting. > > J-D > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Sergey Shelukhin > <[email protected]> wrote: > > should we make this built-in? Sounds like default user intent for > in-memory. > > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Eric Czech <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi everyone, > >> > > >> > Are blocks for in-memory column families automatically loaded in to > the > >> > block cache on restart? > >> > >> > >> No > >> > >> > >> > If not, would anyone recommend running a scan with > >> > .setCacheBlocks(true) after a restart for in-memory column families? > >> > > >> > >> Yes. > >> > >> It should be easy verifying whether the above warmup had an effect. > >> > >> Good luck, > >> St.Ack > >> >
