Thank you Aaron! As long as I have plain strings, would you say that I
would do almost as well with catenation?
Of course I realize that mixed types are a very different case where the
composite is very useful.
Thanks
Maxim
On 12/20/2011 2:44 PM, aaron morton wrote:
Component values are compared in a type aware fashion, an Integer is
an Integer. Not a 10 character zero padded string.
You can also slice on the components. Just like with string concat,
but nicer. . e.g. If you app is storing comments for a thing, and the
column names have the form <comment_id, field> or <Integer, String>
you can slice for all properties of a comment or all properties for
comments between two comment_id's
Finally, the client library knows what's going on.
Hope that helps.
-----------------
Aaron Morton
Freelance Developer
@aaronmorton
http://www.thelastpickle.com
On 21/12/2011, at 7:43 AM, Maxim Potekhin wrote:
With regards to static, what are major benefits as it compares with
string catenation (with some convenient separator inserted)?
Thanks
Maxim
On 12/20/2011 1:39 PM, Richard Low wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Ertio Lew<ertio...@gmail.com
<mailto:ertio...@gmail.com>> wrote:
With regard to the composite columns stuff in Cassandra, I have the
following doubts :
1. What is the storage overhead of the composite type column
names/values,
The values are the same. For each dimension, there is 3 bytes overhead.
2. what exactly is the difference between the DynamicComposite and
Static
Composite ?
Static composite type has the types of each dimension specified in the
column family definition, so all names within that column family have
the same type. Dynamic composite type lets you specify the type for
each column, so they can be different. There is extra storage
overhead for this and care must be taken to ensure all column names
remain comparable.
