Re: Interesting use case

woops was obviously tired, what I said clearly doesn't make sense. On 10 June 2016 at 14:52, kurt Greaves wrote: > Sorry, I did mean larger number of rows per partition. > > On 9 June 2016 at 10:12, John Thomas wrote: > >> The example I gave was for

Re: Interesting use case

Sorry, I did mean larger number of rows per partition. On 9 June 2016 at 10:12, John Thomas wrote: > The example I gave was for when N=1, if we need to save more values I > planned to just add more columns. > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 12:51 AM, kurt Greaves

Re: Interesting use case

The example I gave was for when N=1, if we need to save more values I planned to just add more columns. On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 12:51 AM, kurt Greaves wrote: > I would say it's probably due to a significantly larger number of > partitions when using the overwrite method -

RE: Interesting use case

@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: Interesting use case I would say it's probably due to a significantly larger number of partitions when using the overwrite method - but really you should be seeing similar performance unless one of the schemas ends up generating a lot more disk IO. If you're planning to read