You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@cassandra.apache.org by mi...@thomsonreuters.com on 2011/10/27 22:06:45 UTC

compaction threshold and leveledCompaction

Why these two gives different results?

./nodetool -h 172.xx.xxx.xx  getcompactionthreshold Timeseries TickData

Current compaction thresholds for Timeseries/TickData:
min = 1,  max = 2147483647


[default@Timeseries] show schema;

use Timeseries;
...
  and min_compaction_threshold = 4
  and max_compaction_threshold = 32


If we use leveledCompaction, does compaction threshold setting matter?

Thanks,

Mike


This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and information company. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Thomson Reuters.

Re: compaction threshold and leveledCompaction

Posted by Sylvain Lebresne <sy...@datastax.com>.
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:06 PM,  <mi...@thomsonreuters.com> wrote:
> Why these two gives different results?
>
>
>
> ./nodetool -h 172.xx.xxx.xx  getcompactionthreshold Timeseries TickData
>
>
>
> Current compaction thresholds for Timeseries/TickData:
>
> min = 1,  max = 2147483647
>
>
>
>
>
> [default@Timeseries] show schema;
>
>
>
> use Timeseries;
>
> …
>
>   and min_compaction_threshold = 4
>
>   and max_compaction_threshold = 32
>
>
>
>
>
> If we use leveledCompaction, does compaction threshold setting matter?
>

No, it doesn't matter with leveled compaction. The code override the
min threshold
to 1 and the max to Integer.MAX_VALUE, which is what you are seeing
with nodetool.
It obviously don't override it everywhere it should, given the output
of show schema.

Do you mind opening a JIRA ticket so we fix it?

--
Sylvain

>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and
> information company. Any views expressed in this message are those of the
> individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be
> the views of Thomson Reuters.