> > ... compaction on its own jvm was also something I was thinking about, but > then I realized even more JVM sharding could be done at the table level.
Compaction in it's own JVM makes sense. At the table level I'm not so sure about. Gotta be some serious overheads from running that many JVM's. Keyspace might be reasonable purely to isolate bad tables, but for the most part I'd think isolating every table isn't that beneficial and pretty complicated. In most cases people just fix their modelling so that they don't generate large amounts of GC, and hopefully test enough so they know how it will behave in production. If we did at the table level we would inevitable have to make each individual table incredibly tune-able which would be a bit tedious IMO. There's no way for us to smartly decide how much heap/memtable space/etc each table should use (not without some decent AI, anyway).
