This also seems like an optimization. Why not go in 5.0?
On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 10:14 PM Jordan West <jorda...@gmail.com> wrote: > Agreed this would absolutely be a win. Dont see need for a flag either. > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 1:31 PM Caleb Rackliffe <calebrackli...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 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?) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
