#metabrainz

Gentlecat: well, that’s kind of fun

alastairp: that is my job in dec.

who’s the teacher in the second class?

they are just turning it off.

Perfecto Herrera

when does it finish?

oh wait, second one

Rafael Ramírez

if you asked him, he’d probably bump it 15 or 30 minutes

depending on how many people go to both

it was actually shorter today

most of these classes are only for us so

“us”?

when drinking beer today we actually decided to ask about that next week

SMC

oh yeah. it wouldn’t be a problem at all

I don't think there are any other students there

regommend looks like an easy way to make a recommender for music, now that we have this data. making an artist similarity one would be pretty cake.

so excited

I’m glad it looks good

----> here is the code, fix it

see you tomorrow

sound like they are stable now. would be very useful, methinks.

what about them?

we've been told to avoid them due to stability issues.

but we hear mixed things.

briefly, you probably don't want to use them to count without an aggregator in front of them

By darwin no less

the person who told you that is giving you good advice, actually

however aleksey did meaningfully improve them in recent versions

what use case are you considering using them for?

count the total number of listens a user has. for starters.

then count per artist would be the next logical one. esp for regommend.

how accurate do you want that number to be? do you plan to ever bulk recalculate?

(by, for example, hadooping their entire history?)

decent, yes.

if you have authoritative source and plan to recalculate, accuracy is likely to be fine

most error is in direction of overcount

our data is going to continually evolve an I expect many passes over the data.

what sort of error percentages are we talking about?

off by a couple? couple thousand?

it depends on your client error rate, which depends on how well you operate

modern counters are much less likely to catastrophically overcount

than old ones

the worst case is when you try to increment a counter

and you get an error

the alternative we're considering is keeping counts in redis.

15:01 < darwin> briefly, you probably don't want to use them to count without an aggregator in front of them

it has atomic count operations.

you could use redis as the aggregator I describe

simplereach gave a good presentation on their approach to 300,000 counter updates a minute

ah, thanks for clarifying that.

at the recent cassandra summit

I would be uncomfortable with the idea of cassandra counting in the same cluster as the other data without an in-memory aggregator

for the last.fm case

in theory it might be tractable, but each one of those things

doing it in the same cluster

yeah, that would be a lot of writes.

and counters read-before-write whereas all other cassandra doesn't, etc.

basically counters are pretty okish these days, but they're still distributed counters which can only ever be so accurate

and so performant

meanwhile those redis counters are basically not-distributed, single node, in memory counters

so redis batches for a period, then updates counters in cassandra, is that the model?

which would, if operated in LRU, probably be enough for mb.fm for quite some time

ruaok: yeah, they batch 1 minute of increments at simplereach in a custom aggregator

ruaok: then flush once a minute

ok, got it.

that is a bit different than what I had in mind, but having a practical example to model after is probably better.

they are the most public high-volume cassandra counters shop

the other one is disqus, which... also has an aggregator in front of them

we put a lot of emphasis onto the listened at timestamp.

but we have not timestamp for when we wrote something to disk.

when you put counters in place, how to backfill the data?

is there a best practice there?

if we write something, how do we know if it actually got serialised (in our case where we dedup)

and therefore, when should we increment?

ouch, thats another tricky case.

the best practice would be a single increment

from a materialized-by-otbher-means count

without having some sort of inserted_at timestamp, we couldn't reliably back fill.

right. you replay the data to the aggregator.

but how do you know what data to query for to feed to the backfiller?

all data before timestamp [x] with no count?

and I'm not actualyl saying to replay against hte aggregator

I'm saying if you have the entire dataset in something like hadoop

you can make the initial increment be an increment of all history up to time [x]

ok, and if you dont have hadoop yet?

in that case replaying to the aggregator is a good stress test!

is the presentation btw

trying to get the slide deck

thanks for the thoughts on all this. I'm looking forward to playing with the data. :)

ruaok: did you figure out how to set up documentation?

might want to update sphinxcontrib-httpdomain to 1.4.0 in requirements

that and the https side tracked me. I'll try that tomorrow.

I can come and help again

tomorrow I'm a free man \o/

if you want. I'll be there usual slacker o clock

nice