[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8546?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14264565#comment-14264565
 ] 

Benedict commented on CASSANDRA-8546:
-------------------------------------

If CASSANDRA-8099 fixes it somehow, that's sufficient in my book. 

A BTree, for the record, can happily achieve amortized constant time insertion 
at the end, if so desired. So long as your depth does not exceed the fan_factor 
(which is pretty much impossible here). 

The correct data structure here is most likely a BTree, a Trie, or a hybrid 
such as a String B-Tree. Not specifically for optimising this case, but in 
general. For 3.1 or 3.2, assuming no other impediments appear, I expect this 
all to be replaced along with (or shortly after) the updated storage format.

> RangeTombstoneList becoming bottleneck on tombstone heavy tasks
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-8546
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8546
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Core
>         Environment: 2.0.11 / 2.1
>            Reporter: Dominic Letz
>            Assignee: Benedict
>             Fix For: 2.1.3
>
>         Attachments: cassandra-2.0.11-8546.txt, cassandra-2.1-8546.txt, 
> tombstone_test.tgz
>
>
> I would like to propose a change of the data structure used in the 
> RangeTombstoneList to store and insert tombstone ranges to something with at 
> least O(log N) insert in the middle and at near O(1) and start AND end. Here 
> is why:
> When having tombstone heavy work-loads the current implementation of 
> RangeTombstoneList becomes a bottleneck with slice queries.
> Scanning the number of tombstones up to the default maximum (100k) can take 
> up to 3 minutes of how addInternal() scales on insertion of middle and start 
> elements.
> The attached test shows that with 50k deletes from both sides of a range.
> INSERT 1...110000
> flush()
> DELETE 1...50000
> DELETE 110000...60000
> While one direction performs ok (~400ms on my notebook):
> {code}
> SELECT * FROM timeseries WHERE name = 'a' ORDER BY timestamp DESC LIMIT 1
> {code}
> The other direction underperforms (~7seconds on my notebook)
> {code}
> SELECT * FROM timeseries WHERE name = 'a' ORDER BY timestamp ASC LIMIT 1
> {code}



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to