I meant the mv thing Am 07.12.2016 17:27 schrieb "Voytek Jarnot" <voytek.jar...@gmail.com>:
> 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 increase it so substantially (and we're only dealing > with 5 tables) is making me wonder if I'm not taking the correct approach > in terms of using batches to guarantee atomicity. > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Benjamin Roth <benjamin.r...@jaumo.com> > wrote: > >> Could you please be more specific? >> >> Am 07.12.2016 17:10 schrieb "Voytek Jarnot" <voytek.jar...@gmail.com>: >> >>> 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 <voytek.jar...@gmail.com> >>> 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 in a non-ideal >>>> fashion. >>>> >>>> With one data set duplicated/denormalized into 5 tables to support >>>> queries, we use batches to ensure inserts make it to all or 0 tables. This >>>> works fine, but I've had to bump the warn threshold and fail threshold >>>> substantially (8x higher for the warn threshold). This - in turn - makes >>>> me wonder, with a default setting so low, if I'm not solving this problem >>>> in the canonical/standard way. >>>> >>>> Mostly just looking for confirmation that we're not unintentionally >>>> doing something weird... >>>> >>> >>> >
