Maybe, I’m not really familiar enough with how “classic” MV repair works to
say. You can’t mix normal repair and mutation reconciliation in the current
incarnation of mutation tracking though, so I wouldn’t assume it would work
with MVs.
On Wed, May 14, 2025, at 11:29 AM, Jon Haddad wrote:
> In
In the case of bitrot / losing an SSTable, wouldn't a normal repair (just
the MV against the other nodes) resolve the issue?
On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 11:27 AM Blake Eggleston
wrote:
> Mutation tracking is definitely an approach you could take for MVs.
> Mutation reconciliation could be extended t
Mutation tracking is definitely an approach you could take for MVs. Mutation
reconciliation could be extended to ensure all changes have been replicated to
the views. When a base table received a mutation w/ an id it would generate a
view update. If you block marking a given mutation id as recon
I was thinking along the lines of mutation tracking too, but I have to
admit I haven't spent much time on reading through it, it's probably time I
did. I'd read up on it, thanks for bringing it up.
One thing to consider is that 5TB is not particularly dense anymore, in the
world of Cassandra 5+.
I don't see mutation tracking [1] mentioned in this thread or in the CEP-48
description. Not sure this would fit into the scope of this initial CEP,
but I have a feeling that mutation tracking could be potentially helpful to
reconcile base tables and views ?
For example, when both base and view up
> - The first thing I notice is that we're talking about repairing the
entire table across the entire cluster all in one go. It's been a *long*
time since I tried to do a full repair of an entire table without using
sub-ranges. Is anyone here even doing that with clusters of non-trivial
size? Ho
Putting this another way - what we're trying to achieve here is comparing
two massive unordered sets. I believe the worst case is a O(N^2)
complexity, and N can be in the billions. I really think we need a
completely different approach here than how repair currently works.
For me to be a +1 on t
Congratulations and welcome, Abe!
On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 11:21 AM Bernardo Botella <
conta...@bernardobotella.com> wrote:
> That’s awesome!
>
> Congrats Abe!
>
> On May 13, 2025, at 7:54 AM, Patrick McFadin wrote:
>
> Congratulations Abe!
>
> On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 1:52 AM Berenguer Blasi
> w
I've got several concerns around this repair process.
- The first thing I notice is that we're talking about repairing the entire
table across the entire cluster all in one go. It's been a *long* time
since I tried to do a full repair of an entire table without using
sub-ranges. Is anyone here e
Aha! That is interesting, I was completely oblivious to that. That most
probably explains why we were using the snapshot name as the parent session
id upon SNAPSHOT_MSG so we clean it all in one place when dealing with
CLEANUP_MSG.
All things considered I think that the patch as is in CASSANDRA-20
10 matches
Mail list logo
