The values are empty. It's 3000 UUIDs. On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Avinash Lakshman < avinash.laksh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How large are the values? How much data on disk? > > On Wednesday, April 14, 2010, James Golick <jamesgol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Just for the record, I am able to repeat this locally. > > I'm seeing around 150ms to read 1000 columns from a row that has 3000 in > it. If I enable the rowcache, that goes down to about 90ms. According to my > profile, 90% of the time is being spent waiting for cassandra to respond, so > it's not thrift. > > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Paul Prescod <pres...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Mike Malone <m...@simplegeo.com> > wrote: > >> ... > >> > >> Couldn't you cache a list of keys that were returned for the key range, > then > >> cache individual rows separately or not at all? > >> By "blowing away rows queried by key" I'm guessing you mean "pushing > them > >> out of the LRU cache," not explicitly blowing them away? Either way I'm > not > >> entirely convinced. In my experience I've had pretty good success > caching > >> items that were pulled out via more complicated join / range type > queries. > >> If your system is doing lots of range quereis, and not a lot of lookups > by > >> key, you'd obviously see a performance win from caching the range > queries. > >> Maybe range scan caching could be turned on separately? > > > > I agree with you that the caches should be separate, if you're going > > to cache ranges. You could imagine a single query (perhaps entered > > interactively) would replace the entire row caching all of the data > > for the systems' interactive users. For example, a summary page of who > > is most over the last month active could replace the profile > > information for the actual users who are using the system at that > > moment. > > > > Paul Prescod > > > > > > >
