Thank you guys for the explanations! I use levelDB cause of search and also can't let keys expire due to application logic. Then I'll implement postponed delete or something like this.
Cheers Vladimir On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Kresten Krab Thorup <k...@trifork.com>wrote: > Hi Vladimir, > > Yes, deleting an object is actually more expensive than just marking it > deleted. What happens is that Riak will delete it in two steps, first it > writes a tombstone record for the key, and then some time later it does the > real delete. > > When you do a delete, riak will return success as soon as it has saved the > tombstone record. It then installs a timer and runs a "real delete" later. > Thus, if you delete *a lot* of objects, then you will have a bunch of > pending "real deletes". > > If you can let them expire that would be the most efficient way to get rid > of them. Bitcask and HanoiDB supports expiry. > > Kresten > > > On Sep 11, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Vladimir Shapovalov <shapova...@gmail.com > <mailto:shapova...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > HI all, > > Is deleting a key more expensive operation then just marking it as deleted? > > I noticed that delete a bunch of keys is quite expensive. All CPUs are > fully utilized. > > I can imagine that I can mark the key first and delete them some time > later, e.q. not in rush hours. > What is actually the best way from your point of view to delete a key/keys? > > Thanks in advance! > Vladimir > _______________________________________________ > riak-users mailing list > riak-users@lists.basho.com<mailto:riak-users@lists.basho.com> > http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com > > > > Mobile: + 45 2343 4626 | Skype: krestenkrabthorup | Twitter: @drkrab > Trifork A/S | Margrethepladsen 4 | DK- 8000 Aarhus C | Phone : +45 > 8732 8787 | www.trifork.com<http://www.trifork.com> > > > > >
_______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list riak-users@lists.basho.com http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
