Re: State of triggers

[benjamin roth]

There is a German saying:

Sometimes you don't see the woods because of the lots of trees.

Am 05.03.2017 09:25 schrieb "DuyHai Doan" :

> No problem, distributed systems are hard to reason about, I got caught many
> times in the past
>
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:23 AM, benjamin roth  wrote:
>
> > Sorry. Answer was to fast. Maybe you are right.
> >
> > Am 05.03.2017 09:21 schrieb "benjamin roth" :
> >
> > > No. You just change the partitioner. That's all
> > >
> > > Am 05.03.2017 09:15 schrieb "DuyHai Doan" :
> > >
> > >> "How can that be achieved? I haven't done "scientific researches" yet
> > but
> > >> I
> > >> guess a "MV partitioner" could do the trick. Instead of applying the
> > >> regular partitioner, an MV partitioner would calculate the PK of the
> > base
> > >> table (which is always possible) and then apply the regular
> > partitioner."
> > >>
> > >> The main purpose of MV is to avoid the drawbacks of 2nd index
> > >> architecture,
> > >> e.g. to scan a lot of nodes to fetch the results.
> > >>
> > >> With MV, since you give the partition key, the guarantee is that
> you'll
> > >> hit
> > >> a single node.
> > >>
> > >> Now if you put MV data on the same node as base table data, you're
> doing
> > >> more-or-less the same thing as 2nd index.
> > >>
> > >> Let's take a dead simple example
> > >>
> > >> CREATE TABLE user (user_id uuid PRIMARY KEY, email text);
> > >> CREATE MV user_by_email AS SELECT * FROM user WHERE user_id IS NOT
> NULL
> > >> AND
> > >> email IS NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY((email),user_id);
> > >>
> > >> SELECT * FROM user_by_email WHERE email = xxx;
> > >>
> > >> With this query, how can you find the user_id that corresponds to
> email
> > >> 'xxx' so that your MV partitioner idea can work ?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:05 AM, benjamin roth 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > While I was reading the MV paragraph in your post, an idea popped
> up:
> > >> >
> > >> > The problem with MV inconsistencies and inconsistent range movement
> is
> > >> that
> > >> > the "MV contract" is broken. This only happens because base data and
> > >> > replica data reside on different hosts. If base data + replicas
> would
> > >> stay
> > >> > on the same host then a rebuild/remove would always stream both
> > matching
> > >> > parts of a base table + mv.
> > >> >
> > >> > So my idea:
> > >> > Why not make a replica ALWAYS stay local regardless where the token
> of
> > >> a MV
> > >> > would point at. That would solve these problems:
> > >> > 1. Rebuild / remove node would not break MV contract
> > >> > 2. A write always stays local:
> > >> >
> > >> > a) That means replication happens sync. That means a quorum write to
> > the
> > >> > base table guarantees instant data availability with quorum read on
> a
> > >> view
> > >> >
> > >> > b) It saves network roundtrips + request/response handling and helps
> > to
> > >> > keep a cluster healthier in case of bulk operations (like repair
> > >> streams or
> > >> > rebuild stream). Write load stays local and is not spread across the
> > >> whole
> > >> > cluster. I think it makes the load in these situations more
> > predictable.
> > >> >
> > >> > How can that be achieved? I haven't done "scientific researches" yet
> > >> but I
> > >> > guess a "MV partitioner" could do the trick. Instead of applying the
> > >> > regular partitioner, an MV partitioner would calculate the PK of the
> > >> base
> > >> > table (which is always possible) and then apply the regular
> > partitioner.
> > >> >
> > >> > I'll create a proper Jira for it on monday. Currently it's sunday
> here
> > >> and
> > >> > my family wants me back so just a few thoughts on this right now.
> > >> >
> > >> > Any feedback is appreciated!
> > >> >
> > >> > 2017-03-05 6:34 GMT+01:00 Edward Capriolo :
> > >> >
> > >> > > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Jeff Jirsa 
> > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > On Mar 4, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Edward Capriolo <
> > >> edlinuxg...@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Jeff Jirsa <
> jji...@gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > > >>
> > >> > > > >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:40 AM, Edward Capriolo <
> > >> > > edlinuxg...@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > >>
> > >> > > > >>>
> > >> > > > >>> I used them. I built do it yourself secondary indexes with
> > them.
> > >> > They
> > >> > > > >> have
> > >> > > > >>> there gotchas, but so do all the secondary index
> > >> implementations.
> > >> > > Just
> > >> > > > >>> because datastax does not write about something. Lets see
> > like 5
> > >> > > years
> > >> > > > >> ago
> > >> > > > >>> there was this: https://github.com/hmsonline/
> > cassandra-triggers
> > >> > > > >>>
> > >> > > > >>>
> > >> > > > >> Still in use? How'd it work? Production ready? Would you
> 

Re: State of triggers

[benjamin roth]

Not maybe. You are absolutely right. Bad idea. Hmpf.

Am 05.03.2017 09:23 schrieb "benjamin roth" :

> Sorry. Answer was to fast. Maybe you are right.
>
> Am 05.03.2017 09:21 schrieb "benjamin roth" :
>
>> No. You just change the partitioner. That's all
>>
>> Am 05.03.2017 09:15 schrieb "DuyHai Doan" :
>>
>>> "How can that be achieved? I haven't done "scientific researches" yet
>>> but I
>>> guess a "MV partitioner" could do the trick. Instead of applying the
>>> regular partitioner, an MV partitioner would calculate the PK of the base
>>> table (which is always possible) and then apply the regular partitioner."
>>>
>>> The main purpose of MV is to avoid the drawbacks of 2nd index
>>> architecture,
>>> e.g. to scan a lot of nodes to fetch the results.
>>>
>>> With MV, since you give the partition key, the guarantee is that you'll
>>> hit
>>> a single node.
>>>
>>> Now if you put MV data on the same node as base table data, you're doing
>>> more-or-less the same thing as 2nd index.
>>>
>>> Let's take a dead simple example
>>>
>>> CREATE TABLE user (user_id uuid PRIMARY KEY, email text);
>>> CREATE MV user_by_email AS SELECT * FROM user WHERE user_id IS NOT NULL
>>> AND
>>> email IS NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY((email),user_id);
>>>
>>> SELECT * FROM user_by_email WHERE email = xxx;
>>>
>>> With this query, how can you find the user_id that corresponds to email
>>> 'xxx' so that your MV partitioner idea can work ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:05 AM, benjamin roth  wrote:
>>>
>>> > While I was reading the MV paragraph in your post, an idea popped up:
>>> >
>>> > The problem with MV inconsistencies and inconsistent range movement is
>>> that
>>> > the "MV contract" is broken. This only happens because base data and
>>> > replica data reside on different hosts. If base data + replicas would
>>> stay
>>> > on the same host then a rebuild/remove would always stream both
>>> matching
>>> > parts of a base table + mv.
>>> >
>>> > So my idea:
>>> > Why not make a replica ALWAYS stay local regardless where the token of
>>> a MV
>>> > would point at. That would solve these problems:
>>> > 1. Rebuild / remove node would not break MV contract
>>> > 2. A write always stays local:
>>> >
>>> > a) That means replication happens sync. That means a quorum write to
>>> the
>>> > base table guarantees instant data availability with quorum read on a
>>> view
>>> >
>>> > b) It saves network roundtrips + request/response handling and helps to
>>> > keep a cluster healthier in case of bulk operations (like repair
>>> streams or
>>> > rebuild stream). Write load stays local and is not spread across the
>>> whole
>>> > cluster. I think it makes the load in these situations more
>>> predictable.
>>> >
>>> > How can that be achieved? I haven't done "scientific researches" yet
>>> but I
>>> > guess a "MV partitioner" could do the trick. Instead of applying the
>>> > regular partitioner, an MV partitioner would calculate the PK of the
>>> base
>>> > table (which is always possible) and then apply the regular
>>> partitioner.
>>> >
>>> > I'll create a proper Jira for it on monday. Currently it's sunday here
>>> and
>>> > my family wants me back so just a few thoughts on this right now.
>>> >
>>> > Any feedback is appreciated!
>>> >
>>> > 2017-03-05 6:34 GMT+01:00 Edward Capriolo :
>>> >
>>> > > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Jeff Jirsa 
>>> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > On Mar 4, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Edward Capriolo <
>>> edlinuxg...@gmail.com>
>>> > > > wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Jeff Jirsa 
>>> > wrote:
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:40 AM, Edward Capriolo <
>>> > > edlinuxg...@gmail.com>
>>> > > > >> wrote:
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>> I used them. I built do it yourself secondary indexes with
>>> them.
>>> > They
>>> > > > >> have
>>> > > > >>> there gotchas, but so do all the secondary index
>>> implementations.
>>> > > Just
>>> > > > >>> because datastax does not write about something. Lets see like
>>> 5
>>> > > years
>>> > > > >> ago
>>> > > > >>> there was this: https://github.com/hmsonline/c
>>> assandra-triggers
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >> Still in use? How'd it work? Production ready? Would you still
>>> do it
>>> > > > that
>>> > > > >> way in 2017?
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>> There is a fairly large divergence to what actual users do and
>>> what
>>> > > > other
>>> > > > >>> groups 'say' actual users do in some cases.
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> A lot of people don't share what they're doing (for business
>>> > reasons,
>>> > > or
>>> > > > >> because they don't think it's important, or because they don't
>>> know
>>> > > > >> how/where), and that's fine but it makes it hard for anyone to
>>> know
>>> > > what
>>> > > > >> features are used, or how well 

Re: State of triggers

[DuyHai Doan]

No problem, distributed systems are hard to reason about, I got caught many
times in the past

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:23 AM, benjamin roth  wrote:

> Sorry. Answer was to fast. Maybe you are right.
>
> Am 05.03.2017 09:21 schrieb "benjamin roth" :
>
> > No. You just change the partitioner. That's all
> >
> > Am 05.03.2017 09:15 schrieb "DuyHai Doan" :
> >
> >> "How can that be achieved? I haven't done "scientific researches" yet
> but
> >> I
> >> guess a "MV partitioner" could do the trick. Instead of applying the
> >> regular partitioner, an MV partitioner would calculate the PK of the
> base
> >> table (which is always possible) and then apply the regular
> partitioner."
> >>
> >> The main purpose of MV is to avoid the drawbacks of 2nd index
> >> architecture,
> >> e.g. to scan a lot of nodes to fetch the results.
> >>
> >> With MV, since you give the partition key, the guarantee is that you'll
> >> hit
> >> a single node.
> >>
> >> Now if you put MV data on the same node as base table data, you're doing
> >> more-or-less the same thing as 2nd index.
> >>
> >> Let's take a dead simple example
> >>
> >> CREATE TABLE user (user_id uuid PRIMARY KEY, email text);
> >> CREATE MV user_by_email AS SELECT * FROM user WHERE user_id IS NOT NULL
> >> AND
> >> email IS NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY((email),user_id);
> >>
> >> SELECT * FROM user_by_email WHERE email = xxx;
> >>
> >> With this query, how can you find the user_id that corresponds to email
> >> 'xxx' so that your MV partitioner idea can work ?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:05 AM, benjamin roth  wrote:
> >>
> >> > While I was reading the MV paragraph in your post, an idea popped up:
> >> >
> >> > The problem with MV inconsistencies and inconsistent range movement is
> >> that
> >> > the "MV contract" is broken. This only happens because base data and
> >> > replica data reside on different hosts. If base data + replicas would
> >> stay
> >> > on the same host then a rebuild/remove would always stream both
> matching
> >> > parts of a base table + mv.
> >> >
> >> > So my idea:
> >> > Why not make a replica ALWAYS stay local regardless where the token of
> >> a MV
> >> > would point at. That would solve these problems:
> >> > 1. Rebuild / remove node would not break MV contract
> >> > 2. A write always stays local:
> >> >
> >> > a) That means replication happens sync. That means a quorum write to
> the
> >> > base table guarantees instant data availability with quorum read on a
> >> view
> >> >
> >> > b) It saves network roundtrips + request/response handling and helps
> to
> >> > keep a cluster healthier in case of bulk operations (like repair
> >> streams or
> >> > rebuild stream). Write load stays local and is not spread across the
> >> whole
> >> > cluster. I think it makes the load in these situations more
> predictable.
> >> >
> >> > How can that be achieved? I haven't done "scientific researches" yet
> >> but I
> >> > guess a "MV partitioner" could do the trick. Instead of applying the
> >> > regular partitioner, an MV partitioner would calculate the PK of the
> >> base
> >> > table (which is always possible) and then apply the regular
> partitioner.
> >> >
> >> > I'll create a proper Jira for it on monday. Currently it's sunday here
> >> and
> >> > my family wants me back so just a few thoughts on this right now.
> >> >
> >> > Any feedback is appreciated!
> >> >
> >> > 2017-03-05 6:34 GMT+01:00 Edward Capriolo :
> >> >
> >> > > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Jeff Jirsa 
> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > On Mar 4, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Edward Capriolo <
> >> edlinuxg...@gmail.com>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Jeff Jirsa 
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:40 AM, Edward Capriolo <
> >> > > edlinuxg...@gmail.com>
> >> > > > >> wrote:
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >>>
> >> > > > >>> I used them. I built do it yourself secondary indexes with
> them.
> >> > They
> >> > > > >> have
> >> > > > >>> there gotchas, but so do all the secondary index
> >> implementations.
> >> > > Just
> >> > > > >>> because datastax does not write about something. Lets see
> like 5
> >> > > years
> >> > > > >> ago
> >> > > > >>> there was this: https://github.com/hmsonline/
> cassandra-triggers
> >> > > > >>>
> >> > > > >>>
> >> > > > >> Still in use? How'd it work? Production ready? Would you still
> >> do it
> >> > > > that
> >> > > > >> way in 2017?
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >>> There is a fairly large divergence to what actual users do and
> >> what
> >> > > > other
> >> > > > >>> groups 'say' actual users do in some cases.
> >> > > > >>>
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> A lot of people don't share what they're doing (for business
> >> > reasons,
> >> > > or
> >> > > > >> because they don't think it's important, or 

Re: State of triggers

[benjamin roth]

Sorry. Answer was to fast. Maybe you are right.

Am 05.03.2017 09:21 schrieb "benjamin roth" :

> No. You just change the partitioner. That's all
>
> Am 05.03.2017 09:15 schrieb "DuyHai Doan" :
>
>> "How can that be achieved? I haven't done "scientific researches" yet but
>> I
>> guess a "MV partitioner" could do the trick. Instead of applying the
>> regular partitioner, an MV partitioner would calculate the PK of the base
>> table (which is always possible) and then apply the regular partitioner."
>>
>> The main purpose of MV is to avoid the drawbacks of 2nd index
>> architecture,
>> e.g. to scan a lot of nodes to fetch the results.
>>
>> With MV, since you give the partition key, the guarantee is that you'll
>> hit
>> a single node.
>>
>> Now if you put MV data on the same node as base table data, you're doing
>> more-or-less the same thing as 2nd index.
>>
>> Let's take a dead simple example
>>
>> CREATE TABLE user (user_id uuid PRIMARY KEY, email text);
>> CREATE MV user_by_email AS SELECT * FROM user WHERE user_id IS NOT NULL
>> AND
>> email IS NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY((email),user_id);
>>
>> SELECT * FROM user_by_email WHERE email = xxx;
>>
>> With this query, how can you find the user_id that corresponds to email
>> 'xxx' so that your MV partitioner idea can work ?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:05 AM, benjamin roth  wrote:
>>
>> > While I was reading the MV paragraph in your post, an idea popped up:
>> >
>> > The problem with MV inconsistencies and inconsistent range movement is
>> that
>> > the "MV contract" is broken. This only happens because base data and
>> > replica data reside on different hosts. If base data + replicas would
>> stay
>> > on the same host then a rebuild/remove would always stream both matching
>> > parts of a base table + mv.
>> >
>> > So my idea:
>> > Why not make a replica ALWAYS stay local regardless where the token of
>> a MV
>> > would point at. That would solve these problems:
>> > 1. Rebuild / remove node would not break MV contract
>> > 2. A write always stays local:
>> >
>> > a) That means replication happens sync. That means a quorum write to the
>> > base table guarantees instant data availability with quorum read on a
>> view
>> >
>> > b) It saves network roundtrips + request/response handling and helps to
>> > keep a cluster healthier in case of bulk operations (like repair
>> streams or
>> > rebuild stream). Write load stays local and is not spread across the
>> whole
>> > cluster. I think it makes the load in these situations more predictable.
>> >
>> > How can that be achieved? I haven't done "scientific researches" yet
>> but I
>> > guess a "MV partitioner" could do the trick. Instead of applying the
>> > regular partitioner, an MV partitioner would calculate the PK of the
>> base
>> > table (which is always possible) and then apply the regular partitioner.
>> >
>> > I'll create a proper Jira for it on monday. Currently it's sunday here
>> and
>> > my family wants me back so just a few thoughts on this right now.
>> >
>> > Any feedback is appreciated!
>> >
>> > 2017-03-05 6:34 GMT+01:00 Edward Capriolo :
>> >
>> > > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Mar 4, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Edward Capriolo <
>> edlinuxg...@gmail.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Jeff Jirsa 
>> > wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:40 AM, Edward Capriolo <
>> > > edlinuxg...@gmail.com>
>> > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> I used them. I built do it yourself secondary indexes with them.
>> > They
>> > > > >> have
>> > > > >>> there gotchas, but so do all the secondary index
>> implementations.
>> > > Just
>> > > > >>> because datastax does not write about something. Lets see like 5
>> > > years
>> > > > >> ago
>> > > > >>> there was this: https://github.com/hmsonline/cassandra-triggers
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >> Still in use? How'd it work? Production ready? Would you still
>> do it
>> > > > that
>> > > > >> way in 2017?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>> There is a fairly large divergence to what actual users do and
>> what
>> > > > other
>> > > > >>> groups 'say' actual users do in some cases.
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> A lot of people don't share what they're doing (for business
>> > reasons,
>> > > or
>> > > > >> because they don't think it's important, or because they don't
>> know
>> > > > >> how/where), and that's fine but it makes it hard for anyone to
>> know
>> > > what
>> > > > >> features are used, or how well they're really working in
>> production.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I've seen a handful of "how do we use triggers" questions in IRC,
>> > and
>> > > > they
>> > > > >> weren't unreasonable questions, but seemed like a lot of pain,
>> and
>> > > more
>> > > > >> than one of those people 

Re: State of triggers

[benjamin roth]

No. You just change the partitioner. That's all

Am 05.03.2017 09:15 schrieb "DuyHai Doan" :

> "How can that be achieved? I haven't done "scientific researches" yet but I
> guess a "MV partitioner" could do the trick. Instead of applying the
> regular partitioner, an MV partitioner would calculate the PK of the base
> table (which is always possible) and then apply the regular partitioner."
>
> The main purpose of MV is to avoid the drawbacks of 2nd index architecture,
> e.g. to scan a lot of nodes to fetch the results.
>
> With MV, since you give the partition key, the guarantee is that you'll hit
> a single node.
>
> Now if you put MV data on the same node as base table data, you're doing
> more-or-less the same thing as 2nd index.
>
> Let's take a dead simple example
>
> CREATE TABLE user (user_id uuid PRIMARY KEY, email text);
> CREATE MV user_by_email AS SELECT * FROM user WHERE user_id IS NOT NULL AND
> email IS NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY((email),user_id);
>
> SELECT * FROM user_by_email WHERE email = xxx;
>
> With this query, how can you find the user_id that corresponds to email
> 'xxx' so that your MV partitioner idea can work ?
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:05 AM, benjamin roth  wrote:
>
> > While I was reading the MV paragraph in your post, an idea popped up:
> >
> > The problem with MV inconsistencies and inconsistent range movement is
> that
> > the "MV contract" is broken. This only happens because base data and
> > replica data reside on different hosts. If base data + replicas would
> stay
> > on the same host then a rebuild/remove would always stream both matching
> > parts of a base table + mv.
> >
> > So my idea:
> > Why not make a replica ALWAYS stay local regardless where the token of a
> MV
> > would point at. That would solve these problems:
> > 1. Rebuild / remove node would not break MV contract
> > 2. A write always stays local:
> >
> > a) That means replication happens sync. That means a quorum write to the
> > base table guarantees instant data availability with quorum read on a
> view
> >
> > b) It saves network roundtrips + request/response handling and helps to
> > keep a cluster healthier in case of bulk operations (like repair streams
> or
> > rebuild stream). Write load stays local and is not spread across the
> whole
> > cluster. I think it makes the load in these situations more predictable.
> >
> > How can that be achieved? I haven't done "scientific researches" yet but
> I
> > guess a "MV partitioner" could do the trick. Instead of applying the
> > regular partitioner, an MV partitioner would calculate the PK of the base
> > table (which is always possible) and then apply the regular partitioner.
> >
> > I'll create a proper Jira for it on monday. Currently it's sunday here
> and
> > my family wants me back so just a few thoughts on this right now.
> >
> > Any feedback is appreciated!
> >
> > 2017-03-05 6:34 GMT+01:00 Edward Capriolo :
> >
> > > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Mar 4, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Edward Capriolo  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Jeff Jirsa 
> > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:40 AM, Edward Capriolo <
> > > edlinuxg...@gmail.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I used them. I built do it yourself secondary indexes with them.
> > They
> > > > >> have
> > > > >>> there gotchas, but so do all the secondary index implementations.
> > > Just
> > > > >>> because datastax does not write about something. Lets see like 5
> > > years
> > > > >> ago
> > > > >>> there was this: https://github.com/hmsonline/cassandra-triggers
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> Still in use? How'd it work? Production ready? Would you still do
> it
> > > > that
> > > > >> way in 2017?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> There is a fairly large divergence to what actual users do and
> what
> > > > other
> > > > >>> groups 'say' actual users do in some cases.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> A lot of people don't share what they're doing (for business
> > reasons,
> > > or
> > > > >> because they don't think it's important, or because they don't
> know
> > > > >> how/where), and that's fine but it makes it hard for anyone to
> know
> > > what
> > > > >> features are used, or how well they're really working in
> production.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I've seen a handful of "how do we use triggers" questions in IRC,
> > and
> > > > they
> > > > >> weren't unreasonable questions, but seemed like a lot of pain, and
> > > more
> > > > >> than one of those people ultimately came back and said they used
> > some
> > > > other
> > > > >> mechanism (and of course, some of them silently disappear, so we
> > have
> > > no
> > > > >> idea if it worked or not).
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If anyone's actively using triggers, please don't keep it 

Re: State of triggers

[DuyHai Doan]

"How can that be achieved? I haven't done "scientific researches" yet but I
guess a "MV partitioner" could do the trick. Instead of applying the
regular partitioner, an MV partitioner would calculate the PK of the base
table (which is always possible) and then apply the regular partitioner."

The main purpose of MV is to avoid the drawbacks of 2nd index architecture,
e.g. to scan a lot of nodes to fetch the results.

With MV, since you give the partition key, the guarantee is that you'll hit
a single node.

Now if you put MV data on the same node as base table data, you're doing
more-or-less the same thing as 2nd index.

Let's take a dead simple example

CREATE TABLE user (user_id uuid PRIMARY KEY, email text);
CREATE MV user_by_email AS SELECT * FROM user WHERE user_id IS NOT NULL AND
email IS NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY((email),user_id);

SELECT * FROM user_by_email WHERE email = xxx;

With this query, how can you find the user_id that corresponds to email
'xxx' so that your MV partitioner idea can work ?



On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:05 AM, benjamin roth  wrote:

> While I was reading the MV paragraph in your post, an idea popped up:
>
> The problem with MV inconsistencies and inconsistent range movement is that
> the "MV contract" is broken. This only happens because base data and
> replica data reside on different hosts. If base data + replicas would stay
> on the same host then a rebuild/remove would always stream both matching
> parts of a base table + mv.
>
> So my idea:
> Why not make a replica ALWAYS stay local regardless where the token of a MV
> would point at. That would solve these problems:
> 1. Rebuild / remove node would not break MV contract
> 2. A write always stays local:
>
> a) That means replication happens sync. That means a quorum write to the
> base table guarantees instant data availability with quorum read on a view
>
> b) It saves network roundtrips + request/response handling and helps to
> keep a cluster healthier in case of bulk operations (like repair streams or
> rebuild stream). Write load stays local and is not spread across the whole
> cluster. I think it makes the load in these situations more predictable.
>
> How can that be achieved? I haven't done "scientific researches" yet but I
> guess a "MV partitioner" could do the trick. Instead of applying the
> regular partitioner, an MV partitioner would calculate the PK of the base
> table (which is always possible) and then apply the regular partitioner.
>
> I'll create a proper Jira for it on monday. Currently it's sunday here and
> my family wants me back so just a few thoughts on this right now.
>
> Any feedback is appreciated!
>
> 2017-03-05 6:34 GMT+01:00 Edward Capriolo :
>
> > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Mar 4, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Edward Capriolo 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Jeff Jirsa 
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:40 AM, Edward Capriolo <
> > edlinuxg...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I used them. I built do it yourself secondary indexes with them.
> They
> > > >> have
> > > >>> there gotchas, but so do all the secondary index implementations.
> > Just
> > > >>> because datastax does not write about something. Lets see like 5
> > years
> > > >> ago
> > > >>> there was this: https://github.com/hmsonline/cassandra-triggers
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >> Still in use? How'd it work? Production ready? Would you still do it
> > > that
> > > >> way in 2017?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> There is a fairly large divergence to what actual users do and what
> > > other
> > > >>> groups 'say' actual users do in some cases.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> A lot of people don't share what they're doing (for business
> reasons,
> > or
> > > >> because they don't think it's important, or because they don't know
> > > >> how/where), and that's fine but it makes it hard for anyone to know
> > what
> > > >> features are used, or how well they're really working in production.
> > > >>
> > > >> I've seen a handful of "how do we use triggers" questions in IRC,
> and
> > > they
> > > >> weren't unreasonable questions, but seemed like a lot of pain, and
> > more
> > > >> than one of those people ultimately came back and said they used
> some
> > > other
> > > >> mechanism (and of course, some of them silently disappear, so we
> have
> > no
> > > >> idea if it worked or not).
> > > >>
> > > >> If anyone's actively using triggers, please don't keep it a secret.
> > > Knowing
> > > >> that they're being used would be a great way to justify continuing
> to
> > > >> maintain them.
> > > >>
> > > >> - Jeff
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > "Still in use? How'd it work? Production ready? Would you still do it
> > > that way in 2017?"
> > > >
> > > > I mean that is a loaded question. How long has cassandra had
> Secondary
> > > > 

Re: State of triggers

[benjamin roth]

While I was reading the MV paragraph in your post, an idea popped up:

The problem with MV inconsistencies and inconsistent range movement is that
the "MV contract" is broken. This only happens because base data and
replica data reside on different hosts. If base data + replicas would stay
on the same host then a rebuild/remove would always stream both matching
parts of a base table + mv.

So my idea:
Why not make a replica ALWAYS stay local regardless where the token of a MV
would point at. That would solve these problems:
1. Rebuild / remove node would not break MV contract
2. A write always stays local:

a) That means replication happens sync. That means a quorum write to the
base table guarantees instant data availability with quorum read on a view

b) It saves network roundtrips + request/response handling and helps to
keep a cluster healthier in case of bulk operations (like repair streams or
rebuild stream). Write load stays local and is not spread across the whole
cluster. I think it makes the load in these situations more predictable.

How can that be achieved? I haven't done "scientific researches" yet but I
guess a "MV partitioner" could do the trick. Instead of applying the
regular partitioner, an MV partitioner would calculate the PK of the base
table (which is always possible) and then apply the regular partitioner.

I'll create a proper Jira for it on monday. Currently it's sunday here and
my family wants me back so just a few thoughts on this right now.

Any feedback is appreciated!

2017-03-05 6:34 GMT+01:00 Edward Capriolo :

> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 4, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Edward Capriolo 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:40 AM, Edward Capriolo <
> edlinuxg...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> I used them. I built do it yourself secondary indexes with them. They
> > >> have
> > >>> there gotchas, but so do all the secondary index implementations.
> Just
> > >>> because datastax does not write about something. Lets see like 5
> years
> > >> ago
> > >>> there was this: https://github.com/hmsonline/cassandra-triggers
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> Still in use? How'd it work? Production ready? Would you still do it
> > that
> > >> way in 2017?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> There is a fairly large divergence to what actual users do and what
> > other
> > >>> groups 'say' actual users do in some cases.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> A lot of people don't share what they're doing (for business reasons,
> or
> > >> because they don't think it's important, or because they don't know
> > >> how/where), and that's fine but it makes it hard for anyone to know
> what
> > >> features are used, or how well they're really working in production.
> > >>
> > >> I've seen a handful of "how do we use triggers" questions in IRC, and
> > they
> > >> weren't unreasonable questions, but seemed like a lot of pain, and
> more
> > >> than one of those people ultimately came back and said they used some
> > other
> > >> mechanism (and of course, some of them silently disappear, so we have
> no
> > >> idea if it worked or not).
> > >>
> > >> If anyone's actively using triggers, please don't keep it a secret.
> > Knowing
> > >> that they're being used would be a great way to justify continuing to
> > >> maintain them.
> > >>
> > >> - Jeff
> > >>
> > >
> > > "Still in use? How'd it work? Production ready? Would you still do it
> > that way in 2017?"
> > >
> > > I mean that is a loaded question. How long has cassandra had Secondary
> > > Indexes? Did they work well? Would you use them? How many times were
> > they re-written?
> >
> > It wasn't really meant to be a loaded question; I was being sincere
> >
> > But I'll answer: secondary indexes suck for many use cases, but they're
> > invaluable for their actual intended purpose, and I have no idea how many
> > times they've been rewritten but they're production ready for their
> narrow
> > use case (defined by cardinality).
> >
> > Is there a real triggers use case still? Alternative to MVs? Alternative
> > to CDC? I've never implemented triggers - since you have, what's the
> level
> > of surprise for the developer?
>
>
> :) You mention alternatives/: Lets break them down.
>
> MV:
> They seem to have a lot pf promise. IE you can use them for things other
> then equality searches, and I do think the CQL example with the top N high
> scores is pretty useful. Then again our buddy Mr Roth has a thread named
> "Rebuild / remove node with MV is inconsistent". I actually think a lot of
> the use case for mv falls into the category of "something you should
> actually be doing with storm". I can vibe with the concept of not needing a
> streaming platform, but i KNOW storm would do this correctly. I don't want
> to land on something like 2x index v1 v2 where there was 

Re: State of triggers

[Edward Capriolo]

On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:

>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Edward Capriolo 
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:40 AM, Edward Capriolo 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I used them. I built do it yourself secondary indexes with them. They
> >> have
> >>> there gotchas, but so do all the secondary index implementations. Just
> >>> because datastax does not write about something. Lets see like 5 years
> >> ago
> >>> there was this: https://github.com/hmsonline/cassandra-triggers
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Still in use? How'd it work? Production ready? Would you still do it
> that
> >> way in 2017?
> >>
> >>
> >>> There is a fairly large divergence to what actual users do and what
> other
> >>> groups 'say' actual users do in some cases.
> >>>
> >>
> >> A lot of people don't share what they're doing (for business reasons, or
> >> because they don't think it's important, or because they don't know
> >> how/where), and that's fine but it makes it hard for anyone to know what
> >> features are used, or how well they're really working in production.
> >>
> >> I've seen a handful of "how do we use triggers" questions in IRC, and
> they
> >> weren't unreasonable questions, but seemed like a lot of pain, and more
> >> than one of those people ultimately came back and said they used some
> other
> >> mechanism (and of course, some of them silently disappear, so we have no
> >> idea if it worked or not).
> >>
> >> If anyone's actively using triggers, please don't keep it a secret.
> Knowing
> >> that they're being used would be a great way to justify continuing to
> >> maintain them.
> >>
> >> - Jeff
> >>
> >
> > "Still in use? How'd it work? Production ready? Would you still do it
> that way in 2017?"
> >
> > I mean that is a loaded question. How long has cassandra had Secondary
> > Indexes? Did they work well? Would you use them? How many times were
> they re-written?
>
> It wasn't really meant to be a loaded question; I was being sincere
>
> But I'll answer: secondary indexes suck for many use cases, but they're
> invaluable for their actual intended purpose, and I have no idea how many
> times they've been rewritten but they're production ready for their narrow
> use case (defined by cardinality).
>
> Is there a real triggers use case still? Alternative to MVs? Alternative
> to CDC? I've never implemented triggers - since you have, what's the level
> of surprise for the developer?


:) You mention alternatives/: Lets break them down.

MV:
They seem to have a lot pf promise. IE you can use them for things other
then equality searches, and I do think the CQL example with the top N high
scores is pretty useful. Then again our buddy Mr Roth has a thread named
"Rebuild / remove node with MV is inconsistent". I actually think a lot of
the use case for mv falls into the category of "something you should
actually be doing with storm". I can vibe with the concept of not needing a
streaming platform, but i KNOW storm would do this correctly. I don't want
to land on something like 2x index v1 v2 where there was fundamental flaws
at scale.(not saying this is case but the rebuild thing seems a bit scary)

CDC:
I slightly afraid of this. Rational: A extensible piece design specifically
for a close source implementation of hub and spoke replication. I have some
experience trying to "play along" with extensible things
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12627
"Thus, I'm -1 on {[PropertyOrEnvironmentSeedProvider}}."

Not a rub, but I can't even get something committed using an existing
extensible interface. Heaven forbid a use case I have would want to *change*
the interface, I would probably get a -12. So I have no desire to try and
maintain a CDC implementation. I see myself falling into the same old "why
you want to do this? -1" trap.

Coordinator Triggers:
To bring things back really old-school coordinator triggers everyone always
wanted. In a nutshell, I DO believe they are easier to reason about then
MV. It is pretty basic, it happens on the coordinator there is no batchlogs
or whatever, best effort possibly requiring more nodes then as the keys
might be on different services. Actually I tend do like features like. Once
something comes on the downswing of  "software hype cycle" you know it is
pretty stable as everyone's all excited about other things.

As I said, I know I can use storm for top-n, so what is this feature? Well
I want to optimize my network transfer generally by building my batch
mutations on the server. Seems reasonable. Maybe I want to have my own
little "read before write" thing like CQL lists.

The warts, having tried it. First time i tried it found it did not work
with non batches, patched in 3 hours. Took weeks before some CQL user had
the same problem and it got fixed :) There was no dynamic stuff at the time
so it was BYO 

Re: State of triggers

[Jeff Jirsa]

> On Mar 4, 2017, at 7:06 AM, Edward Capriolo  wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:40 AM, Edward Capriolo 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> I used them. I built do it yourself secondary indexes with them. They
>> have
>>> there gotchas, but so do all the secondary index implementations. Just
>>> because datastax does not write about something. Lets see like 5 years
>> ago
>>> there was this: https://github.com/hmsonline/cassandra-triggers
>>> 
>>> 
>> Still in use? How'd it work? Production ready? Would you still do it that
>> way in 2017?
>> 
>> 
>>> There is a fairly large divergence to what actual users do and what other
>>> groups 'say' actual users do in some cases.
>>> 
>> 
>> A lot of people don't share what they're doing (for business reasons, or
>> because they don't think it's important, or because they don't know
>> how/where), and that's fine but it makes it hard for anyone to know what
>> features are used, or how well they're really working in production.
>> 
>> I've seen a handful of "how do we use triggers" questions in IRC, and they
>> weren't unreasonable questions, but seemed like a lot of pain, and more
>> than one of those people ultimately came back and said they used some other
>> mechanism (and of course, some of them silently disappear, so we have no
>> idea if it worked or not).
>> 
>> If anyone's actively using triggers, please don't keep it a secret. Knowing
>> that they're being used would be a great way to justify continuing to
>> maintain them.
>> 
>> - Jeff
>> 
> 
> "Still in use? How'd it work? Production ready? Would you still do it that 
> way in 2017?"
> 
> I mean that is a loaded question. How long has cassandra had Secondary
> Indexes? Did they work well? Would you use them? How many times were they 
> re-written?

It wasn't really meant to be a loaded question; I was being sincere

But I'll answer: secondary indexes suck for many use cases, but they're 
invaluable for their actual intended purpose, and I have no idea how many times 
they've been rewritten but they're production ready for their narrow use case 
(defined by cardinality).

Is there a real triggers use case still? Alternative to MVs? Alternative to 
CDC? I've never implemented triggers - since you have, what's the level of 
surprise for the developer?

Re: State of triggers

[Edward Capriolo]

On Saturday, March 4, 2017, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jji...@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:40 AM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','edlinuxg...@gmail.com');>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I used them. I built do it yourself secondary indexes with them. They
>> have
>> > there gotchas, but so do all the secondary index implementations. Just
>> > because datastax does not write about something. Lets see like 5 years
>> ago
>> > there was this: https://github.com/hmsonline/cassandra-triggers
>> >
>> >
>> Still in use? How'd it work? Production ready? Would you still do it that
>> way in 2017?
>>
>>
>> > There is a fairly large divergence to what actual users do and what
>> other
>> > groups 'say' actual users do in some cases.
>> >
>>
>> A lot of people don't share what they're doing (for business reasons, or
>> because they don't think it's important, or because they don't know
>> how/where), and that's fine but it makes it hard for anyone to know what
>> features are used, or how well they're really working in production.
>>
>> I've seen a handful of "how do we use triggers" questions in IRC, and they
>> weren't unreasonable questions, but seemed like a lot of pain, and more
>> than one of those people ultimately came back and said they used some
>> other
>> mechanism (and of course, some of them silently disappear, so we have no
>> idea if it worked or not).
>>
>> If anyone's actively using triggers, please don't keep it a secret.
>> Knowing
>> that they're being used would be a great way to justify continuing to
>> maintain them.
>>
>> - Jeff
>>
>
> "Still in use? How'd it work? Production ready? Would you still do it that
> way in 2017?"
>
> I mean that is a loaded question. How long has cassandra had Secondary
> Indexes? Did they work well? Would you use them? How many times were they
> re-written?
>
>
>
The state if triggers imho was more about the long standing opinion that
users should not be able to inject code into cassandra.

That stance reversed and people could inject code, eventually all the
walls: sandboxes, mandate on copying a jar to every server toppled.

In the mix the secondary index implementations (that read before write (and
maybe still do)) were pitches as the supported way to do it correctly.

To be fair i would probably do this in an application server infront of c
unless the trigger had to genenerate n in the hundreds or thousands of
events.


-- 
Sorry this was sent from mobile. Will do less grammar and spell check than
usual.

Re: State of triggers

[Edward Capriolo]

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:40 AM, Edward Capriolo 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I used them. I built do it yourself secondary indexes with them. They
> have
> > there gotchas, but so do all the secondary index implementations. Just
> > because datastax does not write about something. Lets see like 5 years
> ago
> > there was this: https://github.com/hmsonline/cassandra-triggers
> >
> >
> Still in use? How'd it work? Production ready? Would you still do it that
> way in 2017?
>
>
> > There is a fairly large divergence to what actual users do and what other
> > groups 'say' actual users do in some cases.
> >
>
> A lot of people don't share what they're doing (for business reasons, or
> because they don't think it's important, or because they don't know
> how/where), and that's fine but it makes it hard for anyone to know what
> features are used, or how well they're really working in production.
>
> I've seen a handful of "how do we use triggers" questions in IRC, and they
> weren't unreasonable questions, but seemed like a lot of pain, and more
> than one of those people ultimately came back and said they used some other
> mechanism (and of course, some of them silently disappear, so we have no
> idea if it worked or not).
>
> If anyone's actively using triggers, please don't keep it a secret. Knowing
> that they're being used would be a great way to justify continuing to
> maintain them.
>
> - Jeff
>

"Still in use? How'd it work? Production ready? Would you still do it that
way in 2017?"

I mean that is a loaded question. How long has cassandra had Secondary
Indexes? Did they work well? Would you use them? How many times were they
re-written?

Re: State of triggers

[S G]

Does Cassandra itself use triggers internally for something?
That would make a pretty good case for triggers being ready for production
use.

Otherwise, it would tend to be a neglected feature because active
developers would have no good reason to add features to it other than just
make the test suite pass.

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:40 AM, Edward Capriolo 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I used them. I built do it yourself secondary indexes with them. They
> have
> > there gotchas, but so do all the secondary index implementations. Just
> > because datastax does not write about something. Lets see like 5 years
> ago
> > there was this: https://github.com/hmsonline/cassandra-triggers
> >
> >
> Still in use? How'd it work? Production ready? Would you still do it that
> way in 2017?
>
>
> > There is a fairly large divergence to what actual users do and what other
> > groups 'say' actual users do in some cases.
> >
>
> A lot of people don't share what they're doing (for business reasons, or
> because they don't think it's important, or because they don't know
> how/where), and that's fine but it makes it hard for anyone to know what
> features are used, or how well they're really working in production.
>
> I've seen a handful of "how do we use triggers" questions in IRC, and they
> weren't unreasonable questions, but seemed like a lot of pain, and more
> than one of those people ultimately came back and said they used some other
> mechanism (and of course, some of them silently disappear, so we have no
> idea if it worked or not).
>
> If anyone's actively using triggers, please don't keep it a secret. Knowing
> that they're being used would be a great way to justify continuing to
> maintain them.
>
> - Jeff
>

Re: State of triggers

[Jeff Jirsa]

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:40 AM, Edward Capriolo 
wrote:

>
> I used them. I built do it yourself secondary indexes with them. They have
> there gotchas, but so do all the secondary index implementations. Just
> because datastax does not write about something. Lets see like 5 years ago
> there was this: https://github.com/hmsonline/cassandra-triggers
>
>
Still in use? How'd it work? Production ready? Would you still do it that
way in 2017?


> There is a fairly large divergence to what actual users do and what other
> groups 'say' actual users do in some cases.
>

A lot of people don't share what they're doing (for business reasons, or
because they don't think it's important, or because they don't know
how/where), and that's fine but it makes it hard for anyone to know what
features are used, or how well they're really working in production.

I've seen a handful of "how do we use triggers" questions in IRC, and they
weren't unreasonable questions, but seemed like a lot of pain, and more
than one of those people ultimately came back and said they used some other
mechanism (and of course, some of them silently disappear, so we have no
idea if it worked or not).

If anyone's actively using triggers, please don't keep it a secret. Knowing
that they're being used would be a great way to justify continuing to
maintain them.

- Jeff

Re: State of triggers

[Matija Gobec]

There wasn't much work done on triggers since they "came out". Basically it
was always marked as experimental and never got to a usable production
ready state. CDC is going to become a new way of doing things that made you
look into triggers.
Other than that as Jeff said, I never met or heard about anyone using
triggers in production.

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As far as I know, I've never met anyone who wrote and used their own
> triggers in production. I imagine the number of people doing so is very
> small, regardless of version.
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 11:04 AM, S G <sg.online.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am not able to find any documentation on the current state of triggers
> > being production ready.
> >
> > The post at
> > http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/whats-new-in-cassandra-2-
> > 0-prototype-triggers-support
> > says that "The current implementation is experimental, and there is some
> > work to do before triggers in Cassandra can be declared final and
> > production-ready."
> >
> > So which version of Cassandra should we expect triggers to be stable
> > enough?
> > Our requirement is to develop a solution for several Cassandra users all
> > running on different versions (they won't upgrade easily) and no one is
> > using 3.5+ versions.
> > So the smallest Cassandra version which has production ready triggers
> would
> > be really good to know.
> >
> > Also any advice on common gotchas with Cassandra triggers would be great
> to
> > know.
> >
> > Thanks
> > SG
> >
>

Re: State of triggers

[Jeff Jirsa]

As far as I know, I've never met anyone who wrote and used their own
triggers in production. I imagine the number of people doing so is very
small, regardless of version.

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 11:04 AM, S G <sg.online.em...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am not able to find any documentation on the current state of triggers
> being production ready.
>
> The post at
> http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/whats-new-in-cassandra-2-
> 0-prototype-triggers-support
> says that "The current implementation is experimental, and there is some
> work to do before triggers in Cassandra can be declared final and
> production-ready."
>
> So which version of Cassandra should we expect triggers to be stable
> enough?
> Our requirement is to develop a solution for several Cassandra users all
> running on different versions (they won't upgrade easily) and no one is
> using 3.5+ versions.
> So the smallest Cassandra version which has production ready triggers would
> be really good to know.
>
> Also any advice on common gotchas with Cassandra triggers would be great to
> know.
>
> Thanks
> SG
>

Re: State of triggers

[Kant Kodali]

+1

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 11:04 AM, S G <sg.online.em...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am not able to find any documentation on the current state of triggers
> being production ready.
>
> The post at
> http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/whats-new-in-cassandra-2-
> 0-prototype-triggers-support
> says that "The current implementation is experimental, and there is some
> work to do before triggers in Cassandra can be declared final and
> production-ready."
>
> So which version of Cassandra should we expect triggers to be stable
> enough?
> Our requirement is to develop a solution for several Cassandra users all
> running on different versions (they won't upgrade easily) and no one is
> using 3.5+ versions.
> So the smallest Cassandra version which has production ready triggers would
> be really good to know.
>
> Also any advice on common gotchas with Cassandra triggers would be great to
> know.
>
> Thanks
> SG
>

State of triggers

[S G]

Hi,

I am not able to find any documentation on the current state of triggers
being production ready.

The post at
http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/whats-new-in-cassandra-2-0-prototype-triggers-support
says that "The current implementation is experimental, and there is some
work to do before triggers in Cassandra can be declared final and
production-ready."

So which version of Cassandra should we expect triggers to be stable enough?
Our requirement is to develop a solution for several Cassandra users all
running on different versions (they won't upgrade easily) and no one is
using 3.5+ versions.
So the smallest Cassandra version which has production ready triggers would
be really good to know.

Also any advice on common gotchas with Cassandra triggers would be great to
know.

Thanks
SG