I believe I'm aware of the problems that can arise due to the byte ordered
partitioner.
Is there a full list of ALL the problems? I want to make sure I'm not
missing anything.
The main problems I'm aware of are:
... "natural" inserts where the key is something like a u
l.
>>
>
> The compression classes are pluggable. Exploratory patches are always
> welcome! :D
>
> Not sure I understand why you consider Byte Ordered Partitioner relevant,
> isn't what matters for compressibility generally the uniformity of data
> within rows in th
sure I understand why you consider Byte Ordered Partitioner relevant,
isn't what matters for compressibility generally the uniformity of data
within rows in the SSTable, not the uniformity of their row keys?
=Rob
I see that Cassandra doesn't support bmdiff/vcdiff.
>
> Is this primarily because most people aren't using the ordered partitioner?
>
> bmdiff gets good compression by storing similar content next to each page
> on disk. So lots of HTML content would compress well.
>
320-221-9531
> On May 17, 2014, at 10:15 PM, Kevin Burton wrote:
>
> So I see that Cassandra doesn't support bmdiff/vcdiff.
>
> Is this primarily because most people aren't using the ordered partitioner?
>
> bmdiff gets good compression by storing similar conte
So I see that Cassandra doesn't support bmdiff/vcdiff.
Is this primarily because most people aren't using the ordered partitioner?
bmdiff gets good compression by storing similar content next to each page
on disk. So lots of HTML content would compress well.
but if everything is be
Jonathan Ellis [mailto:jbel...@gmail.com]
Sent: maandag 22 april 2013 20:12
To: user
Subject: Re: ordered partitioner
Not in general, no. There are places, like indexing, that need to use a local
partitioner rather than the global one.
Which uses of the DK constructor looked erroneous to you?
Not in general, no. There are places, like indexing, that need to use
a local partitioner rather than the global one.
Which uses of the DK constructor looked erroneous to you?
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Desimpel, Ignace
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I was trying to implement
Hi,
I was trying to implement my own ordered partitioner and got into problems.
The current DecoratedKey is using a ByteBufferUtil.compareUnsigned for
comparing the key. I was thinking of having a signed comparison, so I thought
of making my own DecoratedKey, Token and Partitioner. That way I
verything behaved as expected. I moved to the Ordered Partitioner using
> SHA256 hashes as the keys and subsequently these are the tokens (If the
> stories I am told are true). My hope is that, in defining the initial tokens
> correctly, I would see random and even load balancing.
>
>
I am currently using Cassandra 0.6.2 on four virtual nodes in two different
data centers (A, B). My initial testing used the Random Partitioner and
everything behaved as expected. I moved to the Ordered Partitioner using
SHA256 hashes as the keys and subsequently these are the tokens (If the
11 matches
Mail list logo
