Alrighty, with what looks like a fair amount of support, I'll declare CASSANDRA-19968 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-19968> ready for some preliminary review.
On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 2:41 PM Caleb Rackliffe <calebrackli...@gmail.com> wrote: > We did add CASSANDRA-18940 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18940> to make sure > local SAI post-filtering reads got picked up somewhere, but you're right > that StorageProxy#readRegular() would start recording some index queries > in the normal read metrics. > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 2:11 PM Jeremiah Jordan <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Did we add new metrics for index queries? The only issue I see is that >> this change will mix index queries into the regular read metrics, where >> before they were in the range metrics, so maybe some changes to metrics >> should go with it. But I think this is a good change over all. >> >> On Oct 1, 2024 at 1:51:10 PM, Jon Haddad <j...@rustyrazorblade.com> wrote: >> >>> 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?) >>>>> >>>>>
