On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I see. It is fairly misleading because it is a query that does not > work at scale. This syntax is only helpful if you have less then a few > thousand rows in Cassandra. Just for the sake of argument, how is that misleading? If you have billions of rows and do the select statement from you initial mail, what did the syntax lead you to believe it would return? A remark like "maybe we just shouldn't allow that and leave that to the map-reduce side" would make sense, but I don't see how this is "misleading". But again, this translate directly to a get_range_slice (that don't scale if you have billion of rows and don't limit the output either) so there is nothing new here.
