If you are reading and making decisions about what to write just remember there
are no transactions. You are essentially running at a Read Uncommitted level of
transaction isolation, with regard of batch mutations (a mutation for a single
row is atomic).
If you can it may be less headache to wr
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Ran Tavory wrote:
> I haven't benchmarked so it's purely theoretical.
> If there's no caching then I'm pretty sure just writing would yield better
> performance.
> If you do cache rows/keys it really depends on your hit ratio. Naturally if
> you have a small data s
I haven't benchmarked so it's purely theoretical.
If there's no caching then I'm pretty sure just writing would yield better
performance.
If you do cache rows/keys it really depends on your hit ratio. Naturally if
you have a small data set and high cache ratio and use row caching I'm
pretty sure it
I think Just writing all the time is much better, as most of replacements
will be done in memtable.
also you should set a large memtable size, in compared with the average row
size.
2010/8/27 Daniel Doubleday
> Hi people
>
> I was wondering if anyone already benchmarked such a situation:
>
> I
