OK, cool. I can think of no such reason.
-Tupshin
On Mar 11, 2014 10:27 AM, "Wayne Schroeder"
wrote:
> I think it will work just fine. I was just asking for opinions on if
> there was some reason it would not work that I was not thinking of.
>
> On Mar 10, 2014, at 4:37 PM, Tupshin Harper w
I think it will work just fine. I was just asking for opinions on if there was
some reason it would not work that I was not thinking of.
On Mar 10, 2014, at 4:37 PM, Tupshin Harper
mailto:tups...@tupshin.com>> wrote:
Oh sorry, I misunderstood. But now I'm confused about how what you are tryi
The plan IS to do the whole write as a lightweight transaction because I do
need to rely on the behavior. I am just vetting the expected behavior--that
doing it as a conditional update, i.e. a light weight transaction, that I am
not missing something and it will behave as I outlined without som
Oh sorry, I misunderstood. But now I'm confused about how what you are
trying to do is not accomplished with the existing IF NOT EXISTS syntax.
http://www.datastax.com/documentation/cassandra/2.0/cassandra/dml/dml_ltwt_transaction_c.html
-Tupshin
On Mar 10, 2014 4:24 PM, "Wayne Schroeder"
wrote
Take a 3 node cluster with RF=3, and QUORUM reads and writes. Consistency
is achieved by ensuring that at least two nodes acknowledge a write, and at
least two nodes have to participate in a read. As a result, you know that
at least one of the two nodes that you are reading from has received the
la
As I understand it, even though a quorum write fails, the data is still (more
than likely) saved and will become eventually consistent through the well known
mechanisms. I have a case where I would rather this not happen--where I would
prefer that if the quorum write fails, that data NEVER beco
