+1 On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 2:44 PM Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: > > A couple days ago when writing a separate email I came across this DataStax > blog post discussing MVs [1]. Imagine my surprise when I noticed the date > was five years ago... > > While at TLP, I helped numerous customers move off of MVs, mostly because > they affected stability of clusters in a horrific way. The most telling > project involved helping someone create new tables to manage 1GB of data > because the views performed so poorly they made the cluster unresponsive > and unusable. Despite being around for five years, they've seen very > little improvement that makes them usable for non trivial, non laptop > workloads. > > Since the original commits, it doesn't look like there's been much work to > improve them, and they're yet another feature I ended up saying "just don't > use". I haven't heard any plans to improve them in any meaningful way - > either to address their issues with performance or the inability to repair > them. > > The original contributor of MVs (Carl Yeksigian) seems to have disappeared > from the project, meaning we have a broken feature without a maintainer, > and no plans to fix it. > > As we move forward with the 4.0 release, we should consider this an > opportunity to deprecate materialized views, and remove them in 5.0. We > should take this opportunity to learn from the mistake and raise the bar > for new features to undergo a much more thorough run the wringer before > merging. > > I'm curious what folks think - am I way off base here? Am I missing a JIRA > that can magically fix the issues with performance, availability & > correctness? > > [1] > https://www.datastax.com/blog/2015/06/new-cassandra-30-materialized-views > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6477
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
