Re: What is the point of counter type when we can do the same thing with int or bigint?

The only way to do this in Cassandra now is with counters - whether you add 1 or n, it's counters or ugly read before write and lightweight transactions. Counters give Cassandra the closest thing they'll ever have to vector clocks - they give the user a way to do commutative deltas in a

Re: What is the point of counter type when we can do the same thing with int or bigint?

Also are you saying counters are atomic? On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Kant Kodali wrote: > How about “Set the value 1 above what it is now" ? The same principle > should apply right? > > > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Jeff Jirsa >

Re: What is the point of counter type when we can do the same thing with int or bigint?

How about “Set the value 1 above what it is now" ? The same principle should apply right? On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Jeff Jirsa wrote: > You cant use int/bigint to say “Set the value 2 above what it is now”, > unless you use a read to get the current value,

Re: What is the point of counter type when we can do the same thing with int or bigint?

You cant use int/bigint to say “Set the value 2 above what it is now”, unless you use a read to get the current value, then write using lightweight transactions, which have a significant performance penalty. The primary reason for this is because no individual Cassandra node is guaranteed