[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1608?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13090883#comment-13090883
 ] 

Benjamin Coverston edited comment on CASSANDRA-1608 at 8/25/11 10:05 AM:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've made the changes requested in the last two comments. The latest 
changes/merge seem to have caused a regression when the # of SSTables increases 
beyond a few hundred. Next time I'll be able to look at this is Friday I'll try 
to figure out what on earth is going on.

EDIT:
Somehow I screwed up the attached patch.. I'll fix it and resubmit.

      was (Author: bcoverston):
    I've made the changes requested in the last two comments. The latest 
changes/merge seem to have caused a regression when the # of SSTables increases 
beyond a few hundred. Next time I'll be able to look at this is Friday I'll try 
to figure out what on earth is going on.
  
> Redesigned Compaction
> ---------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-1608
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1608
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Core
>            Reporter: Chris Goffinet
>            Assignee: Benjamin Coverston
>         Attachments: 1608-22082011.txt, 1608-v2.txt, 1608-v4.txt
>
>
> After seeing the I/O issues in CASSANDRA-1470, I've been doing some more 
> thinking on this subject that I wanted to lay out.
> I propose we redo the concept of how compaction works in Cassandra. At the 
> moment, compaction is kicked off based on a write access pattern, not read 
> access pattern. In most cases, you want the opposite. You want to be able to 
> track how well each SSTable is performing in the system. If we were to keep 
> statistics in-memory of each SSTable, prioritize them based on most accessed, 
> and bloom filter hit/miss ratios, we could intelligently group sstables that 
> are being read most often and schedule them for compaction. We could also 
> schedule lower priority maintenance on SSTable's not often accessed.
> I also propose we limit the size of each SSTable to a fix sized, that gives 
> us the ability to  better utilize our bloom filters in a predictable manner. 
> At the moment after a certain size, the bloom filters become less reliable. 
> This would also allow us to group data most accessed. Currently the size of 
> an SSTable can grow to a point where large portions of the data might not 
> actually be accessed as often.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

Reply via email to