[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18441?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17711553#comment-17711553
]
Caleb Rackliffe edited comment on CASSANDRA-18441 at 4/12/23 9:07 PM:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's been a while since I was able to give attention to CASSANDRA-17292 and my
[primary
proposal|https://github.com/maedhroz/cassandra/commit/450b920e0ac072cec635e0ebcb63538ee7f1fc5a]
for how we should nest {{cassandra.yaml}} in the future, but I would like to
at least advocate taking it into consideration when we figure out the system
property + YAML naming/nesting structure here. When I left it, it felt like we
were at least on our way toward a manageable consensus.
More broadly, although I know we did some flattening of a few configs leading
up to the 4.1 release, it feels like we shouldn't be prohibited from placing
*some* structure/nesting around new config elements like the one we're talking
abut here. Is there anyone that would disagree w/ that?
CC [~adelapena] [~benedict] [~paulo]
If we were to match that proposal to the current system property, the nesting
would probably look something like:
{noformat}
sstable:
format:
default: bti
bti:
row_index_granularity: 4KiB
{noformat}
was (Author: maedhroz):
It's been a while since I was able to give attention to CASSANDRA-17292 and my
[primary
proposal|https://github.com/maedhroz/cassandra/commit/450b920e0ac072cec635e0ebcb63538ee7f1fc5a]
for how we should nest {{cassandra.yaml}} in the future, but I would like to
at least advocate taking it into consideration when we figure out the system
property + YAML naming/nesting structure here. When I left it, it felt like we
were at least on our way toward a manageable consensus.
More broadly, although I know we did some flattening of a few configs leading
up to the 4.1 release, it feels like we shouldn't be prohibited from placing
*some* structure/nesting around new config elements like the one we're talking
abut here. Is there anyone that would disagree w/ that?
CC [~adelapena] [~benedict] [~paulo]
> Improvements to SSTable format configuration
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-18441
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18441
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Local/SSTable
> Reporter: Branimir Lambov
> Assignee: Jacek Lewandowski
> Priority: Normal
> Fix For: 5.x
>
>
> CEP-17 and CASSANDRA-17056 abstracted some interfaces for SSTable format
> implementations and defined a method of plugging in specific configurations.
> This method is brittle and asks users to specify format identifiers whose
> configuration does not provide value but can be the source of conflicts and
> problems. On the other hand it makes important choices non-obvious, as the
> selection of format to write is given by the order of configured interfaces.
> An improved specification mechanism needs to be put in place before Cassandra
> 5 is released.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commits-h...@cassandra.apache.org
