[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9259?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15197725#comment-15197725
]
Vassil Lunchev commented on CASSANDRA-9259:
-------------------------------------------
Very good results!
>From the benchmarks it seems like 100k rows/second is something like a limit.
>I have seen that limit in tests as well and to me it is more like 100k
>cells/second.
Do you think Cassandra would be able to push more than 100k rows/second with
partition sizes smaller than 100-bytes (I know that is unpractical)?
Also do you think adding more columns to the rows will have any effect. Like,
do you think the bound is around 100k rows/second or around 100k cells/second?
If I have to bet, it would still be around 100k per second even with smaller
than 100 bytes partitions, and the bottleneck is the number of cells, not the
number of rows.
> Bulk Reading from Cassandra
> ---------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-9259
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9259
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Compaction, CQL, Local Write-Read Paths, Streaming and
> Messaging, Testing
> Reporter: Brian Hess
> Assignee: Stefania
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 3.x
>
> Attachments: bulk-read-benchmark.1.html,
> bulk-read-jfr-profiles.1.tar.gz, bulk-read-jfr-profiles.2.tar.gz
>
>
> This ticket is following on from the 2015 NGCC. This ticket is designed to
> be a place for discussing and designing an approach to bulk reading.
> The goal is to have a bulk reading path for Cassandra. That is, a path
> optimized to grab a large portion of the data for a table (potentially all of
> it). This is a core element in the Spark integration with Cassandra, and the
> speed at which Cassandra can deliver bulk data to Spark is limiting the
> performance of Spark-plus-Cassandra operations. This is especially of
> importance as Cassandra will (likely) leverage Spark for internal operations
> (for example CASSANDRA-8234).
> The core CQL to consider is the following:
> SELECT a, b, c FROM myKs.myTable WHERE Token(partitionKey) > X AND
> Token(partitionKey) <= Y
> Here, we choose X and Y to be contained within one token range (perhaps
> considering the primary range of a node without vnodes, for example). This
> query pushes 50K-100K rows/sec, which is not very fast if we are doing bulk
> operations via Spark (or other processing frameworks - ETL, etc). There are
> a few causes (e.g., inefficient paging).
> There are a few approaches that could be considered. First, we consider a
> new "Streaming Compaction" approach. The key observation here is that a bulk
> read from Cassandra is a lot like a major compaction, though instead of
> outputting a new SSTable we would output CQL rows to a stream/socket/etc.
> This would be similar to a CompactionTask, but would strip out some
> unnecessary things in there (e.g., some of the indexing, etc). Predicates and
> projections could also be encapsulated in this new "StreamingCompactionTask",
> for example.
> Another approach would be an alternate storage format. For example, we might
> employ Parquet (just as an example) to store the same data as in the primary
> Cassandra storage (aka SSTables). This is akin to Global Indexes (an
> alternate storage of the same data optimized for a particular query). Then,
> Cassandra can choose to leverage this alternate storage for particular CQL
> queries (e.g., range scans).
> These are just 2 suggestions to get the conversation going.
> One thing to note is that it will be useful to have this storage segregated
> by token range so that when you extract via these mechanisms you do not get
> replications-factor numbers of copies of the data. That will certainly be an
> issue for some Spark operations (e.g., counting). Thus, we will want
> per-token-range storage (even for single disks), so this will likely leverage
> CASSANDRA-6696 (though, we'll want to also consider the single disk case).
> It is also worth discussing what the success criteria is here. It is
> unlikely to be as fast as EDW or HDFS performance (though, that is still a
> good goal), but being within some percentage of that performance should be
> set as success. For example, 2x as long as doing bulk operations on HDFS
> with similar node count/size/etc.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
