Right you are, thank you Cody.
Wondering if I may reach out again to the list and ask a similar question
in a more specific way:
Scenario: Cassandra 3.x, small cluster (<10 nodes), 1 DC
Is a batch warn threshold of 50kb, and average batch sizes in the 40kb
range a recipe for regret? Should we b
There is a disconnect between write.3 and write.4, but it can only affect
performance, not consistency. The presence or absence of a row's txnUUID in
the IncompleteTransactions table is the ultimate source of truth, and rows
whose txnUUID are not null will be checked against that truth in the read
Appreciate the long writeup Cody.
Yeah, we're good with temporary inconsistency (thankfully) as well. I'm
going to try to ride the batch train and hope it doesn't derail - our load
is fairly static (or, more precisely, increase in load is fairly slow and
can be projected).
Enjoyed your two-phase
Hi Voytek,
I think the way you are using it is definitely the canonical way.
Unfortunately, as you learned, there are some gotchas. We tried
substantially increasing the batch size and it worked for a while, until we
reached new scale, and we increased it again, and so forth. It works, but
soon you
@Ed, what you just said reminded me a lot of RAMP transactions. I did a
blog post on it here: http://rustyrazorblade.com/2015/11/ramp-made-easy/
I've been considering doing a follow up on how to do a Cassandra data model
enabling RAMP transactions, but that takes time, and I have almost zero of
t
I have been circling around a thought process over batches. Now that
Cassandra has aggregating functions, it might be possible write a type of
record that has an END_OF_BATCH type marker and the data can be suppressed
from view until it was all there.
IE you write something like a checksum record
Ok thanks. Im investingating a Lot. There will be some improvements coming
but cannot promise if it will solve All existing problems. We will see and
keep working on it.
Am 07.12.2016 17:58 schrieb "Voytek Jarnot" :
> Been about a month since I have up on it, but it was very much related to
> the
Been about a month since I have up on it, but it was very much related to
the stuff you're dealing with ... Basically Cassandra just stepping on its
own er, tripping over its own feet streaming MVs.
On Dec 7, 2016 10:45 AM, "Benjamin Roth" wrote:
> I meant the mv thing
>
> Am 07.12.2016
I meant the mv thing
Am 07.12.2016 17:27 schrieb "Voytek Jarnot" :
> Sure, about which part?
>
> default batch size warning is 5kb
> I've increased it to 30kb, and will need to increase to 40kb (8x default
> setting) to avoid WARN log messages about batch sizes. I do realize it's
> just a WARNin
Sure, about which part?
default batch size warning is 5kb
I've increased it to 30kb, and will need to increase to 40kb (8x default
setting) to avoid WARN log messages about batch sizes. I do realize it's
just a WARNing, but may as well avoid those if I can configure it out.
That said, having to i
Could you please be more specific?
Am 07.12.2016 17:10 schrieb "Voytek Jarnot" :
> Should've mentioned - running 3.9. Also - please do not recommend MVs: I
> tried, they're broken, we punted.
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Voytek Jarnot
> wrote:
>
>> The low default value for batch_size_w
Should've mentioned - running 3.9. Also - please do not recommend MVs: I
tried, they're broken, we punted.
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Voytek Jarnot
wrote:
> The low default value for batch_size_warn_threshold_in_kb is making me
> wonder if I'm perhaps approaching the problem of atomicity
12 matches
Mail list logo
