You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@cassandra.apache.org by "Jonathan Ellis (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2009/09/02 18:04:34 UTC
[jira] Commented: (CASSANDRA-408) Pool BufferedRandomAccessFile
objects used by sstable reads
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-408?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12750499#action_12750499 ]
Jonathan Ellis commented on CASSANDRA-408:
------------------------------------------
this results in not one pooled reader per thread but one pooled reader per sstable per thread. this would be bad in pathological cases like digg's 1200 sstables post-bulk-load-pre-compaction. need to rethink the approach here.
> Pool BufferedRandomAccessFile objects used by sstable reads
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-408
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-408
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Core
> Reporter: Jonathan Ellis
> Assignee: Jonathan Ellis
> Fix For: 0.5
>
> Attachments: 408.patch, commons-pool-1.5.2.jar
>
>
> not only does BRAF per op do a whole lot of extra fopens, but the buffering actually makes it _more_ expensive to set up since on the jvm all primitive arrays are initialized to zero.
> this adds a simple read test to stress.py; I'm seeing about a 10% increase in throughput which is worth 200loc imo.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.