[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18796?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17759085#comment-17759085
]
Caleb Rackliffe commented on CASSANDRA-18796:
---------------------------------------------
That's certainly less brittle than singling out a particular compaction
strategy. (This could be just a problematic on UCS configured a certain way,
etc.) What I'd do in that case is have a new {{MaxThreshold}} w/ warn/fail
thresholds at maybe 16/128.
I'm obviously open to further experimental evidence around where our tipping
points might be.
> 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: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
