You can increase it if you're sure that it fits your use case. For an explanation of why batch size vs number of statements, see the discussion in CASSANDRA-6487. Cheers!
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Tim Moore <tim.mo...@lightbend.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to understand some of the details of the > batch_size_warn_threshold_in_kb/batch_size_fail_threshold_in_kb settings. > > Specifically, why are the thresholds measured in kb rather than the number > of partitions affected? > > We have run into the limit in a situation where there is a batch with > writes to two tables (because we wanted to ensure atomicity of the writes > in the case of a failure). In some situations, the data inserted into one > of these tables can be large enough to push the total batch size over the > limit. > > In this specific case, we were able to rewrite things so that it could be > split into separate statement executions with the application handling > retry on failure so atomicity is not needed. It left us wondering, however, > whether executing this as a batch was really problematic, or if the warning > from Cassandra was spurious in this case. > > Is it really the total data size that matters, or just the number of > affected partitions? > > Thanks, > Tim > > -- > Tim Moore > *Senior Engineer, Lagom, Lightbend, Inc.* > tim.mo...@lightbend.com > +61 420 981 589 <+61%20420%20981%20589> > Skype: timothy.m.moore > > <https://www.lightbend.com/> >
