Hi, are secondary index queries with thrift supported in Cassandra 3.x ?
Asking as I am not able to get them working.
I am doing a get_range_slices call with row_filter set in the KeyRange
property, but I am getting an exception in the server with the following
trace:
INFO | jvm 1| 2016/
I meant what was tagged as 0.7.0, at least that is what i used in my
0.7.0 tests:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.7.0/
Ivan
On 21.2.2011 ?. 22:12 ?., ruslan usifov wrote:
2011/2/21 Ivan Georgiev mailto:yngw...@bk.ru>>
That is strange. In 0.7.0 i see th
or compact. Sounds
to me like the difference you are seeing is caused by your row size
and not a regression in Cassandra.
2011/2/21 Ivan Georgiev:
Some more digging. This is the code path causing the excessive rebuffer()
calls.
java.lang.Exception: Stack trace
at java.lang.Thread.dumpSt
problem ?
Ivan
On 21.2.2011 г. 14:07 ч., Ivan Georgiev wrote:
I did some very rough measurements in a desperate attempt to see if I
can find the issue (if there is an issue).
Since I dont know the code base well enough i chose
BufferedRandomAccessFile as my suspect, since it was rewritten from
., Ivan Georgiev wrote:
Is it possible that the changes to the BufferedRandomAccessFile.java
could be causing the issue ?
I think the most notable change there is using ByteBuffer instead of a
byte[] for the buffer.
I will run more tests and see what comes out of it.
Ivan
On 20.2.2011 г. 05:03
wrote:
I guess you'll need to binary search through the 0.7.1 changes to find
what made the difference. I can't think of any obvious candidates.
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Ivan Georgiev wrote:
On 19.2.2011 г. 16:43 ч., Jonathan Ellis wrote:
Flush code didn't change between
JNA is disabled and it is a windows box.
Ivan
On 19.2.2011 г. 19:23 ч., Jake Luciani wrote:
Are you running with JNA enabled? If so could you try disabling it?
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Ivan Georgiev <mailto:yngw...@bk.ru>> wrote:
On 19.2.2011 г. 16:43 ч., Jonathan El
0.7.1 tests are similar to 0.7.2, while 0.7 early betas to
0.7.0 is fine.
Ivan
On 19.2.2011 г. 16:43 ч., Jonathan Ellis wrote:
Flush code didn't change between 0.7.0 and 0.7.2. There must be some
other variable here. Memory pressure maybe?
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Ivan Georgiev wrot
Hi,
I am testing 0.7.2 on a Windows 2003 x64 system(one node) and I am
having the following problem.
My insertion speed is relatively slow, so the memtables do not get full
and the actual flushing is triggered by memtable_flush_after_mins, this
happens on the hour mark. My problem with 0.7.2 i
