This seems like it's strictly a win. Doesn't sound to me like a flag is needed.
On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 2:44 PM Caleb Rackliffe <calebrackli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > (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?) >> >>
