> (Higher rate of mismatches requiring a second full read? Why would 2i be more likely?)
Right, I don't see any reason they should be more likely to actuate read-repair than slice queries are today... Didn't mention this above, but I'd obviously be open to having a system property that switches this behavior. On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 12:43 PM Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 1, 2024, at 10:28 AM, Caleb Rackliffe <calebrackli...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hello fellow secondary index enjoyers! > > > > If you're familiar with index queries, you probably know that they are > treated as range reads no matter what. This is true even if the user query > restricts results to a single partition. This means that they bypass the > digest read process that normal single-partition reads do. > > TIL. > > > > > While I don't think this is something that we need to consider for 5.0, > I would be very interested in the next major release being able to use > proper single-partition reads for partition-restricted index queries, > allowing them to take advantage of digest reads. (If single partition slice > queries do it, why not index queries?) > > This seems like an obvious yes, so reverse the question - is there any > reason why we WOULDNT want to do this? > > (Higher rate of mismatches requiring a second full read? Why would 2i be > more likely?) > >
