CQL maps a series of logical rows into a single physical row by transposing multiple rows based on partition and clustering keys into slices of a row. The point is to add a loose schema on top of a wide row which allows you to stop reimplementing common patterns.
Yes, you can go in and mess with your tables via the cassandra-cli, but that's not exactly "proving me wrong." You've simply removed the constraints of CQL and wrote data to the table at a lower level that didn't deal with schema enforcement. On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com>wrote: > "Feel free to continue to use thrift's wide row structure, with ad hoc > columns. No one is stopping you." > > Thanks. I was not trying to stop you from doing it your way either. > > You said this: > > "COMPACT STORAGE imposes the limit that you can't add columns to your > tables." > > I was demonstrating you are incorrect. > > I then went on to point out that Cassandra is a ColumnFamily data store > which was designed around big table. You could always add column > dynamically because schema-less is one of the key components of a > ColumnFamily datastore. > > I know which CQL document you are loosely referencing that implies you can > not add columns to compact storage. If that were true Cassandra would have > never been a ColumnFamily data store. > > I have found several documents which are championing CQL and its > constructs, which suggest that some thing can not be done with compact > storage. In reality those are short comings of the CQL language. I say this > because the language can not easily accommodate the original schema system. > > Many applications that are already written and performing well do NOT fit > well into the CQL model of non compact storage (which does not have a name > by the way probably because the opposite of compact is sparse and how would > "SPARSE STORAGE" sound?). Implying all the original stuff is "legacy" and > you "should probably avoid it" is wrong. > > In many cases compact storage it is the best way to store things, because > it is the smallest. > > > > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Jonathan Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: > >> If you expected your CQL3 query to work, then I think you've missed the >> point of CQL completely. For many of us, adding in a query layer which >> gives us predictable column names, but continues to allow us to utilize >> wide rows on disk is a huge benefit. Why would I want to reinvent a system >> for structured data when the DB can handle it for me? I get a bunch of >> stuff for free with CQL, which decreases my development time, which is the >> resource that I happen to be the most bottlenecked on. >> >> Feel free to continue to use thrift's wide row structure, with ad hoc >> columns. No one is stopping you. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> "COMPACT STORAGE imposes the limit that you can't add columns to your >>> tables." >>> >>> Is absolutely false. If anything CQL is imposing the limits! >>> >>> Simple to prove. Try something like this: >>> >>> create table abc (x int); >>> insert into abc (y) values (5); >>> >>> and watch CQL reject the insert saying something to the effect of 'y? >>> whats that? Did you mean CQL2 OR 1.5?, or hamburgers' >>> >>> Then go to the Cassandra cli and do this: >>> create column family abd; >>> set ['abd']['y']= '5'; >>> set ['abd']['z']='4'; >>> >>> AND IT WORKS! >>> >>> I noticed the nomenclature starting to spring up around the term "legacy >>> tables" and docs based around "can't do with them". Frankly it makes me >>> nuts because... >>> >>> This little known web company named google produced a white paper about >>> what a ColumnFamily data model could do >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BigTable . Cassandra was build on the >>> BigTable/ColumnFamily data model. There was also this big movement called >>> NoSQL, where people wanted to break free of query languages and rigid >>> schema's.... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Jonathan Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com>wrote: >>> >>>> The CQL docs recommend not using it - I didn't just make that up. :) >>>> COMPACT STORAGE imposes the limit that you can't add columns to your >>>> tables. For those of us that are heavy CQL users, this limitation is a >>>> total deal breaker. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Robert Coli <rc...@eventbrite.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Jonathan Haddad >>>>> <j...@jonhaddad.com>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It's advised you do not use compact storage, as it's primarily for >>>>>> backwards compatibility. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Many Apache Cassandra experts do not advise against using COMPACT >>>>> STORAGE. [1] Use CQL3 non-COMPACT STORAGE if you want to, but there are >>>>> also valid reasons to not use it. Asserting that there is some good reason >>>>> you should not use COMPACT STORAGE (other than range ghosts?) seems >>>>> inaccurate. :) >>>>> >>>>> =Rob >>>>> [1] >>>>> http://www.edwardcapriolo.com/roller/edwardcapriolo/entry/legacy_tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jon Haddad >>>> http://www.rustyrazorblade.com >>>> skype: rustyrazorblade >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Jon Haddad >> http://www.rustyrazorblade.com >> skype: rustyrazorblade >> > > -- Jon Haddad http://www.rustyrazorblade.com skype: rustyrazorblade
