[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18796?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17760526#comment-17760526
]
Caleb Rackliffe commented on CASSANDRA-18796:
---------------------------------------------
bq. You have that many with a 3 level LCS.
Exactly. That's kind of the point. As [~mike_tr_adamson] mentions above...
bq. From observation, we have seen that queries on large clusters start to
falter when the number of sstables gets in the hundreds
Anyway, I'll create a patch here w/ 32/-1 if I'm the only person that doesn't
want the fail threshold to be infinite.
> Optionally fail when a non-partition-restricted query is issued against a
> storage-attached index with a backing table using LCS
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-18796
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18796
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Feature/2i Index, Feature/SAI, Local/Compaction/LCS
> Reporter: Caleb Rackliffe
> Assignee: Caleb Rackliffe
> Priority: Normal
> Fix For: 5.0.x, 5.x
>
>
> With LCS, we will have potentially thousands of SSTables for a given user
> table. Storage-attached also means SSTable-attached, and searching thousands
> of attached indexes is not going to scale well at all locally, due to the
> sheer number of searches and amount of postings list merging involved. We
> should have a guardrail to prohibit this by default.
> Partition-restricted queries, the use-case SAI is broadly designed for,
> should be very efficient.
--
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
