[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1207?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12970327#action_12970327
]
Brandon Williams commented on CASSANDRA-1207:
---------------------------------------------
I'm inclined to think specifying something in the CF definition is the better
approach here. Too many of the deciding factors on where to choose the
automatic limit depend on the use case involved (such as the index example,
where the row is large but only sliced.) The automatic approach can help the
naive user, but the more powerful user will have to constrain their
model/access pattern to our threshold to gain its benefits. We could use an
automatic default, but allow overriding it for more advanced cases.
> Don't write BloomFilters for skinny rows
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-1207
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1207
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Stu Hood
> Assignee: Brandon Williams
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 0.7.1
>
> Attachments:
> 0001-Return-alwaysMatchingBloomFilter-for-0-length-filter.patch,
> 0002-Conditionally-write-the-row-bloom-filter.patch
>
>
> All rows currently contain a serialized BloomFilter, regardless of size. For
> smaller rows, it is much more efficient in space and CPU time to not write a
> BloomFilter, and to eagerly perform lookups against the existing columns.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
