It's touchy... what if the data set doesn't fit in the in-memory's
part of the block cache (which is 25%)? Maybe the user only wants to
keep "in-memory" those edits that are being used? What about the IO
hit of assigning those regions at startup that would now need to read
X GBs all at once?
FWIW I've never been a fan of that setting.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Sergey Shelukhin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> should we make this built-in? Sounds like default user intent for in-memory.
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Eric Czech <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Hi everyone,
>> > Are blocks for in-memory column families automatically loaded in to the
>> > block cache on restart?
>> > If not, would anyone recommend running a scan with
>> > .setCacheBlocks(true) after a restart for in-memory column families?
>> It should be easy verifying whether the above warmup had an effect.
>> Good luck,