When we say disable, do you mean disable creation of new SASI indices, or disable using existing ones? I assume it's just creation of new?
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 11:19 AM Andrés de la Peña <a.penya.gar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > It is my understanding that SASI is still to be considered an > experimental/beta feature, and they apparently are not being very actively > developed. Some higlighted problems in SASI are: > > - OOMs during flush, as it is described in CASSANDRA-12662 > - General secondary index consistency problems described in CASSANDRA-8272. > There is a pending-review patch addressing the problem for regular 2i. > However, the proposed solution is based on indexing tombstones. SASI > doesn't index tombstones, so it wouldn't be enterely trivial to extend the > approach to SASI. > - Probably insufficient testing. As far as I know, we don't have a single > dtest for SASI nor tests dealing with large SSTables. > > Similarly to what CASSANDRA-13959 did with materialized views, > CASSANDRA-14866 aims to throw a native protocol warning about SASI > experimental state, and to add a config property to disable them. Perhaps > this property could be disabled by default in trunk. This should raise > awareness about SASI maturity until we let them in a more stable state. > > The purpose for this thread is discussing whether we want to add this > warning, the config property and, more controversially, if we want to set > SASI as disabled by default in trunk. > > WDYT? >
