How does Scylla Evict Data from its Cache?

user_8814573 0
Viewed 92

How does Scylla determine when to evict data from its cache? For example, suppose table T has the following structure:

K1 C1 V1 V2 V3

I populate the above table with 500 rows (e.g, the query SELECT * from T WHERE K1 = X & C1 = Y returns 500 rows).

Some time later I insert a new row into the above table that would cause the above query to return 501 rows, instead of 500 rows.

Does Scylla know to automatically evict the 500 rows from its cache or at least to add row 501 to its cache? If not, most queries will quickly start returning outdated data. Similarly, what happens if I don’t add a new row to the database, rather I update one of the existing 500 rows. Is Scylla aware of this modification and capable of updating its cache automatically? If yes, is it smart enough only to update the data that changed (the new row or the row that was modified) or does it evict/update all 500 rows?

Are there any cases to be aware of where data is updated in SSTables but not in memory?

Thanks

P.S

I read a lot about how caching works in Scylla but I didn’t see a clear answer to the above question. If Scylla is indeed aware of background updates I would also be curious to learn HOW it achieves such dynamic and intelligent updating of its cache.

scylla nosql caching database
1 Answers

I think you are misunderstanding what the cache does in Scylla, or any database for that matter.

The row cache, as its name suggests, caches (i.e., keeps in memory) individual rows - not the results of entire requests. So the fact that a request at one point returned 500 rows does not mean that the next time this request will come Scylla will return the same 500 rows. Not at all. Let me try to explain what does happen, although this is also documented elsewhere and I'll also simplify some details to hopefully get the point across:

When a Scylla node boots up, all the data is located on disk (stored in files known as sstables) and nothing is in memory. When a user asks to read one specific row that is not already in the in-memory cache, this row is read from disk and then stored in the cache. If the user later reads the same row again, it is returned from cache immediately. If the user writes to this row, the row is updated in the cache as well as on disk (the details are slightly more complicated, there is also an in-memory table - memtable - but I'm trying to simplify). The cache is always up-to-date - if a row appears in it, it is correct. Of course it also may not appear in it.

The situation you describe in your question's text (although not the actual query you posted!) is about a scan of a slice of a partition, returning not one but many rows (500 or 501). Scylla needs to (and does) put in a bit more work to handle this case correctly:

When the scan of a certain range is done for the first time, Scylla reads those 500 rows in that range, and puts each of them in the row cache. But it also remembers that the cache is contiguous in that range - these 500 rows are everything that exists in this range. So when the user tries the same query again, the cache doesn't need to check if maybe there are additional rows between those 500 - it knows there aren't. If you later write a 501st row inside this range, this row is added to the cache, which knows it remained contiguous, so the next scan of this range will return 501 rows. Scylla does not need to evict the 500 rows just because one was added to the same partition.

If at some later point in time Scylla runs out of memory and needs to evict some rows from the cache, it may decide to evict all these 501 rows from the cache - or some of them. If it evicts some of them, it loses continuity - if it only remembers, say, 400 rows for the original range, if the user asks to scan that range again Scylla is forced (again, simplifying some details) to read all the rows in the range from disk, because it has no idea which specific rows it is missing in this range.

user_88912240
Related