I mean disabling the creation of new SASI indices with CREATE INDEX statement, the existing indexes would continue working. The CQL client warning will be thrown with that creation statement as well (if they are enabled).
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 20:18, Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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? > > >
