Agreed. We’re going to run a benchmark. Just realized we grew to 144
columns. Fun. Kind of disappointing that Cassandra is so slow in this
regard. Kind of defeats the whole point of flexible schema if actually
using that feature is slow as hell.
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Jeff Jirsa
wr
The key is to benchmark it with your real data. Modern cassandra-stress let’s
you get very close to your actual read/write behavior, and the real
differentiator will depend on your use case (how often do you write the whole
row vs updating just one column/field). My gist shows a ton of different
Hey.
I’m considering migrating my DB from using multiple columns to just 2
columns, with the second one being a JSON object. Is there going to be any
real difference between TEXT or UTF-8 encoded BLOB?
I guess it would probably be easier to get tools like spark to parse the
object as JSON if it’
Ah.. yes. Great benchmarks. If I’m interpreting them correctly it was ~15x
slower for 22 columns vs 2 columns?
Guess we have to refactor again :-P
Not the end of the world of course.
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Jeff Jirsa
wrote:
> A few months back, a user in #cassandra on freenode menti
A few months back, a user in #cassandra on freenode mentioned that when they
transitioned from thrift to cql, their overall performance decreased
significantly. They had 66 columns per table, so I ran some benchmarks with
various versions of Cassandra and thrift/cql combinations.
It shouldn’t r
Is there any advantage to using say 40 columns per row vs using 2 columns
(one for the pk and the other for data) and then shoving the data into a
BLOB as a JSON object?
To date, we’ve been just adding new columns. I profiled Cassandra and
about 50% of the CPU time is spent on CPU doing compactio
