[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14099?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Vincent White updated CASSANDRA-14099:
--------------------------------------
Status: Patch Available (was: Open)
I've created a patch that splits in this comparator in two as a way to maybe
help avoid this confusion in the future. Now that this is split into two I'm
not sure if a unit test for ageSortedSSTables (or the comparators themselves)
would be required? I have included a unit test for ageSortedSSTables on my
3.0.x branch, not sure if it's worth making ageSortedSStable() Public just for
this but I didn't see anywhere else where its behaviour was visible.
[3.0 patch |
https://github.com/vincewhite/cassandra/commits/14099_timestamp_comparators_30]
[3.0 utest |
https://github.com/vincewhite/cassandra/commit/5ab1ff36a28b41039bd93de7d47b4131e1c2dfaa]
[3.x patch |
https://github.com/vincewhite/cassandra/commits/14099_timestamp_comparators_311]
[trunk patch |
https://github.com/vincewhite/cassandra/commits/14099_timestamp_comparators_trunk]
> LCS ordering of sstables by timestamp is inverted
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-14099
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14099
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Compaction
> Reporter: Jeff Jirsa
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 3.0.x, 3.11.x, 4.x
>
>
> In CASSANDRA-14010 we discovered that CASSANDRA-13776 broke sstable ordering
> by timestamp (inverted it accidentally). Investigating that revealed that the
> comparator was expecting newest-to-oldest for read command, but LCS expects
> oldest-to-newest.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commits-h...@cassandra.apache.org
