I'm with you Ed. I love that Cassandra is moving forward at a very fast pace, but often I get the impression some people want to avoid thrift at all cost whether it makes sense or not. I totally understand the commiters don't have enough bandwidth to make sure all existing cases transition smoothly to CQL3 and beyond, but to dismiss existing users doesn't foster good will. I'd go as far as to say it hurts the community. Saying things like "cql3 is the future" is a smack in the face of existing users of thrift.
I've been contributing to various apache projects for over 10 years, so I know that pain first hand. I've made similar blunders over the years, so I'm definitely guilty of doing the same thing on other projects. At the end of the day though, I feel it's important for people to speak out, even if it may be painful. Clearly there are use cases that don't fit CQL3 well and is easier with thrift. I'm hopeful that as CQL matures, it will get better at handling more complex uses that currently don't transition well. On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com>wrote: > The main issue is that cassandra has two of everything. Two access apis, > two meta data systems, and two groups of users. > > Those groups of users using the original systems thrift, cfmetadata, and > following the advice of three years ago have been labled obsolete (did you > ever see that twighlight zone episode?). > > If you suggest a thrift only feature get ready to fight. People seem > oblivious to the fact that you may have a 38 node cluster with 12 tb of > data under compact storage, and that you can't just snap your fingers and > adopt whatever new system to pack data that someone comes up with. > > Earlier in the thread I detailed a potential way to store collection like > things in compact storage. You would just assume that with all the > collective brain power in the project, that somehow, some way collections > could make their way into compact storage. Or the new language would offer > similiar features regardless of storage chosen (say like innodb and > mariadb). > > The shelf life of codd's normal form has been what? 30 or 40 years and > still going strong? Im always rather pisswd that 3 years after i start > using cassandra everything has changed, that im not the future, and that no > one is really interested in supporting anything i used the datastore for. > > > > On Friday, February 21, 2014, Sylvain Lebresne <sylv...@datastax.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Rüdiger Klaehn <rkla...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Sylvain, > >> > >> I applied the patch to the cassandra-2.0 branch (this required some > manual work since I could not figure out which commit it was supposed to > apply for, and it did not apply to the head of cassandra-2.0). > > > > Yeah, some commit yesterday made the patch not apply cleanly anymore. In > any case, It's not committed to the cassandra-2.0 branch and will be part > of 2.0.6. > >> > >> The benchmark now runs in pretty much identical time to the thrift > based benchmark. ~30s for 1000 inserts of 10000 key/value pairs each. Great > work! > > > > Glad that it helped. > > > >> > >> I still have some questions regarding the mapping. Please bear with me > if these are stupid questions. I am quite new to Cassandra. > >> > >> The basic cassandra data model for a keyspace is something like this, > right? > >> > >> SortedMap<byte[], SortedMap<byte[], Pair<Long, byte[]>> > >> ^ row key. determines which server(s) the rest is > stored on > >> ^ column key > >> ^ > timestamp (latest one wins) > >> > ^ value (can be size 0) > > > > It's a reasonable way to think of how things are stored internally, yes. > Though as DuyHai mentioned, the first map is really sorting by token and in > general that means you use mostly the sorting of the second map concretely. > > > >> > >> So if I have a table like the one in my benchmark (using blobs) > >> > >> CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS test.wide ( > >> time blob, > >> name blob, > >> value blob, > >> PRIMARY KEY (time,name)) > >> WITH COMPACT STORAGE > >> > >> From reading http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/thrift-to-cql3 it seems > that > >> > >> - time maps to the row key and name maps to the column key without any > overhead > >> - value directly maps to value in the model above without any prefix > >> > >> is that correct, or is there some overhead involved in CQL over the raw > model as described above? If so, where exactly? > > > > That's correct. > > For completeness sake, if you were to remove the COMPACT STORAGE, there > would be some overhead in how it maps to the underlying column key, but > that overhead would buy you much more flexibility in how you could evolve > this table schema (you could add more CQL columns later if needs be, have > collections or have static columns following CASSANDRA-6561 that comes in > 2.0.6; none of which you can have with COMPACT STORAGE). Note that it's > perfectly fine to use COMPACT STORAGE if you know you don't and won't need > the additional flexibility, but I generally advise people to actually check > first that using COMPACT STORAGE does make a concrete and meaningful > difference for their use case (be careful with premature optimization > really). The difference in performance/storage space used is not always all > that noticeable in practice (note that I didn't said it's never > noticeable!) and is narrowing with Cassandra evolution (it's not impossible > at all that we will get to "never noticeable" someday, while COMPACT > STORAGE tables will never get the flexibility of normal tables because > there is backwards compatibility issues). It's also my experience that more > often that not (again, not always), flexibility turns out to be more > important that squeezing every bit of performance you can (if it comes at > the price of that flexibility that is) in the long run. Do what you want of > that advise :) > > -- > > Sylvain > > > >> > >> kind regards and many thanks for your help, > >> > >> Rüdiger > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Sylvain Lebresne <sylv...@datastax.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Rüdiger Klaehn <rkla...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I have cloned the cassandra repo, applied the patch, and built it. > But when I want to run the bechmark I get an exception. See below. I tried > with a non-managed dependency to > cassandra-driver-core-2.0.0-rc3-SNAPSHOT-jar-with-dependencies.jar, which I > compiled from source because I read that that might help. But that did not > make a difference. > >>>> > >>>> So currently I don't know how to give the patch a try. Any ideas? > >>>> > >>>> cheers, > >>>> > >>>> Rüdiger > >>>> > >>>> Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: > replicate_on_write is not a column defined in this metadata > >>>> at > com.datastax.driver.core.ColumnDefinitions.getAllIdx(ColumnDefinitions.java:273) > >>>> at > com.datastax.driver.core.ColumnDefinitions.getFirstIdx(ColumnDefinitions.java:279) > >>>> at com.datastax.driver.core.Row.getBool(Row.java:117) > >>>> at > com.datastax.driver.core.TableMetadata$Options.<init>(TableMetadata.java:474) > >>>> at > com.datastax.driver.core.TableMetadata.build(TableMetadata.java:107) > >>>> at > com.datastax.driver.core.Metadata.buildTableMetadata(Metadata.java:128) > >>>> at > com.datastax.driver.core.Metadata.rebuildSchema(Metadata.java:89) > >>>> at > com.datastax.driver.core.ControlConnection.refreshSchema(ControlConnection.java:259) > >>>> at > com.datastax.driver.core.ControlConnection.tryConnect(ControlConnection.java:214) > >>>> at > com.datastax.driver.core.ControlConnection.reconnectInternal(ControlConnection.java:161) > >>>> at > com.datastax.driver.core.ControlConnection.connect(ControlConnection.java:77) > >>>> at com.datastax.driver.core.Cluster$Manager.init(Cluster.java:890) > >>>> at > com.datastax.driver.core.Cluster$Manager.newSession(Cluster.java:910) > >>>> at > com.datastax.driver.core.Cluster$Manager.access$200(Cluster.java:806) > >>>> at com.datastax.driver.core.Cluster.connect(Cluster.java:158) > >>>> at > cassandra.CassandraTestMinimized$delayedInit$body.apply(CassandraTestMinimized.scala:31) > >>>> at scala.Function0$class.apply$mcV$sp(Function0.scala:40) > >>>> at > scala.runtime.AbstractFunction0.apply$mcV$sp(AbstractFunction0.scala:12) > >>>> at scala.App$$anonfun$main$1.apply(App.scala:71) > >>>> at scala.App$$anonfun$main$1.apply(App.scala:71) > >>>> at scala.collection.immutable.List.foreach(List.scala:318) > >>>> at > scala.collection.generic.TraversableForwarder$class.foreach(TraversableForwarder.scala:32) > >>>> at scala.App$class.main(App.scala:71) > >>>> at > cassandra.CassandraTestMinimized$.main(CassandraTestMinimized.scala:5) > >>>> at > cassandra.CassandraTestMinimized.main(CassandraTestMinimized.scala) > >>> > >>> I believe you've tried the cassandra trunk branch? trunk is basically > the future Cassandra 2.1 and the driver is currently unhappy because the > replicate_on_write option has been removed in that version. I'm supposed to > have fixed that on the driver 2.0 branch like 2 days ago so maybe you're > also using a slightly old version of the driver sources in there? Or maybe > I've screwed up my fix, I'll double check. But anyway, it would be overall > simpler to test with the cassandra-2.0 branch of Cassandra, with which you > shouldn't run into that. > >>> -- > >>> Sylvain > > > > > > -- > Sorry this was sent from mobile. Will do less grammar and spell check than > usual. >
