"Another possible alternative is to use a single map column" --> how do you manage the different types then ? Because maps in Cassandra are strongly typed
Unless you set the type of map value to blob, in this case you might as well store all the object as a single blob column On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:13 PM, sfesc...@gmail.com <sfesc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Another possible alternative is to use a single map column. > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 7:19 AM Dorian Hoxha <dorian.ho...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Since I will only have 1 table with that many columns, and the other >> tables will be "normal" tables with max 30 columns, and the memory of 2K >> columns won't be that big, I'm gonna guess I'll be fine. >> >> The data model is too dynamic, the alternative would be to create a table >> for each user which will have even more overhead since the number of users >> is in the several thousands/millions. >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:04 PM, DuyHai Doan <doanduy...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> There is no real limit in term of number of columns in a table, I would >>> say that the impact of having a lot of columns is the amount of meta data >>> C* needs to keep in memory for encoding/decoding each row. >>> >>> Now, if you have a table with 1000+ columns, the problem is probably >>> your data model... >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Dorian Hoxha <dorian.ho...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Is there alot of overhead with having a big number of columns in a >>>> table ? Not unbounded, but say, would 2000 be a problem(I think that's the >>>> maximum I'll need) ? >>>> >>>> Thank You >>>> >>> >>> >>
