Good point! >From what I understand even though there’s “loop” in the name it has preceded >a current wave of agentic looping. In other words, they use same methodology >one would when searching for performance improvements: measurement profiling >hypothesis etc., and then go through multiple evaluation stages.
Contributions are not coming with any conditions: agent just posts a patch, and all associated documentation and hypothesis is freely available. >From what I understand, mentioning that X has found an issue in an open source >project is ok (similar to how a researcher can claim a found issue); that of >course can’t imply that Cassandra logo can be used in vendor materials. Thank >you for pointing that out. On Wed, Jul 8, 2026, at 9:55 PM, C. Scott Andreas wrote: > I’m supportive and not aware of any blockers. > > One consideration on approach: David has done some experimentation with > loop-based optimization. His work demonstrates a lot of promise, but with a > caveat that as the loop approaches optimality the complexity of the patch can > increase at a rate that outpaces its value. I’d be curious how this approach > handles that tradeoff. > > And one for the project: if use of the software creates any obligation for > Apache Cassandra such as referenceability in the vendor’s press materials > etc., that would need to be discussed and voted on by the PMC prior to > creating any such obligation. > > — > Mobile > >> On Jul 8, 2026, at 5:59 AM, Alex Petrov <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hey folks, >> >> A friend of mine is building Perfloop [1]; the way they describe it, "closed >> loop performance engineering". They already have several upstream OSS >> merges, including two in parquet-go [2] and one in RoaringBitmap/roaring >> [3], all benchmark-verified. >> >> I was curious if they can find anything in Cassandra, so asked them to try >> it against our repo, and they've found a bunch of performance improvements, >> many of which seem to be quite easy to review and verify. All of them come >> with a finding, benchmark, a patch, and verification of an improvement, >> which is pretty useful for a reviewer. >> >> I've looked over the issues, and will be reviewing and committing some of >> them. Is there anything that prevents us from committing the patches that >> were fully LLM-authored, assuming contents are solid? >> >> --Alex >> >> [1] https://perfloop.ai/ >> [2] https://github.com/parquet-go/parquet-go/pull/550 >> [3] https://github.com/RoaringBitmap/roaring/pull/532
