[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-4449?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Sylvain Lebresne updated CASSANDRA-4449: ---------------------------------------- Attachment: 4449.txt Attaching patch that: # make prepared statement global for the binary protocol. I've kept backward compatibility on the thrift side to be conservative. # for the binary protocol, switch the hash used as statement ID to md5, because I don't trust String.hashCode() enough (and I don't think there is guarantees that it cannot change between java versions). I'd *really* like to get that in for 1.2 because I think that having per-connection statement makes it very painful for clients library that want to hide the details of how they perform connection pooling. > Make prepared statement global rather than connection based > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CASSANDRA-4449 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-4449 > Project: Cassandra > Issue Type: Improvement > Reporter: Sylvain Lebresne > Attachments: 4449.txt > > > Currently, prepared statements are connection based. A client can only use a > prepared statement on the connection it prepared it on, and if you prepare > the same prepared statement on multiple connections, we'll keep multiple > times the same prepared statement. This is potentially inefficient but can > also be fairly painful for client libraries with pool of connections (a.k.a > all reasonable client library ever) as this means you need to make sure you > prepare statement on every connection of the pool, including the connection > that don't exist yet but might be created later. > This ticket suggests making prepared statement global (at least for CQL3), > i.e. move them out of ClientState. This will likely reduce the number of > stored statement on a given node quite a bit, since it's very likely that all > clients to a given node will prepare the same statements (and potentially on > all of their connection with the node). And given that prepared statement > identifiers are the hashCode() of the string, this should be fairly trivial. > I will note that while I think using a hash of the string as identifier is a > very good idea, I don't know if the default java hashCode() is good enough. > If that's a concern, maybe we should use a safer (bug longer) hash like md5 > or sha1. But we'd better do that now. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira