[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6880?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13951398#comment-13951398 ]
Aleksey Yeschenko commented on CASSANDRA-6880: ---------------------------------------------- The old (pre-1.2) index locks were per-keyspace. I'm more inclined to go global this time, though. Whether to go 1024 * CW or higher is an open question though. FWIW I'm not committing this until the current batch of CASSANDRA-6553 and the next one (with changed params + some new tests) are run, so feel free to keep brainstorming here. > counters++ lock on cells, not partitions > ---------------------------------------- > > Key: CASSANDRA-6880 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6880 > Project: Cassandra > Issue Type: Improvement > Reporter: Aleksey Yeschenko > Assignee: Aleksey Yeschenko > Fix For: 2.1 beta2 > > > I'm starting to think that we should switch to locking by cells, not by > partitions, when updating counters. > With the current 2.1 counters, if nothing changes, the new recommendation > would become "use smaller partitions, batch updates to the same partition", > and that goes against what we usually recommend: > 1. Prefer wide partitions to narrow partitions > 2. Don't batch counter updates (because you risk to exaggerate > undercounting/overcounting in case of a timeout) > Locking on cells would cause C* to have to grab more locks for batch counter > updates, but would give us generally more predictable performance > (independent of partition wideness), and won't force people to remodel their > data model if they have often concurrently-updated counters in the same few > wide partitions. > (It's a small change, code-wise) -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.2#6252)