I believe you are correct that the implementation taking the Set is the
right one to use.
On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 9:44 AM Ali Akhtar <ali.rac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Or it could even take Set<label> as the first bound var:
>
> void addLabel(Set<Label> label, String id);
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Ali Akhtar <ali.rac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Andrew,
>
> I was thinking about setting up an accessor with that query and a bound
> variable ? which binds to the instance being added, e.g:
>
> @Query("UPDATE my_table SET labels = labels + ? WHERE id = ?")
> void addLabel(Label label, String id);
>
> Will that work?
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Andrew Tolbert <
> andrew.tolb...@datastax.com> wrote:
>
> You can do it in a SimpleStatement assuming you provide the CQL exactly as
> you provided, but in a PreparedStatement it will not work because cql
> prohibits provide bind values in collection literals. For it to work you
> could provide a List of UDT values in a bound prepared statement, i.e.:
>
> UserType udtType =
> cluster.getMetadata().getKeyspace("k").getUserType("u");
> UDTValue value = udtType.newValue();
> value.setString(0, "data");
>
> PreparedStatement p0 = session.prepare("UPDATE my_table SET labels =
> labels + ? where id = ?");
> BoundStatement b0 = p0.bind(*Lists.newArrayList(value)*, 0);
> session.execute(b0);
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Ali Akhtar <ali.rac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Looks like the trick was to use [] around the udt value literal.
>
> Any way to do this using the java driver?
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Ali Akhtar <ali.rac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Changing the double quotes to single quotes gives:
>
> UPDATE my_table SET labels = labels + {id: 'foo'} where id = '';
>
> InvalidRequest: Error from server: code=2200 [Invalid query]
> message="Invalid user type literal for labels of type list<frozen<label>>"
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Ali Akhtar <ali.rac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The question is about appending to a set of frozen<udt> and how to do that
> while avoiding the race condition.
>
> If I run:
>
> UPDATE my_table SET labels = labels + {id: "foo"} where id = 'xx';
>
> I get:
>
> SyntaxException: line 1:57 no viable alternative at input '}' (...= labels
> + {id: ["fo]o"}...)
>
> Here labels is set<frozen<label>>
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Vladimir Yudovin <vla...@winguzone.com>
> wrote:
>
> If I used consistency = ALL both when getting the record, and when saving
> the record, will that avoid the race condition?
> If I use consistency level = all, will that cause it to end up with [1,2]?
> No. Even if you have only one host it's possible that two threads first
> both read data and than overwrite existing value one by one.
>
> The list is actually of a list<frozen<my_udt>> and not a text (I used text
> for simplification, apologies).
> In that case, will updates still merge the list values instead of
> overwriting them?
> Do you mean UPDATE cql operation? Yes, it adds new values to list,
> allowing duplicates.
>
> When setting a new value to a list, C* will do a read-delete-write
> internally e.g. read the current list, remove all its value (by a range
> tombstone) and then write the new list.
> As I mentioned duplicates are allowed in LIST, and as DOC says:
>
> These update operations are implemented internally without any
> read-before-write. Appending and prepending a new element to the list
> writes only the new element.
>
> Only when using index
>
> When you add an element at a particular position, Cassandra reads the
> entire list, and then writes only the updated element. Consequently, adding
> an element at a particular position results in greater latency than
> appending or prefixing an element to a list.
>
>
> Best regards, Vladimir Yudovin,
>
> *Winguzone <https://winguzone.com?from=list> - Hosted Cloud
> CassandraLaunch your cluster in minutes.*
>
>
> ---- On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 07:57:36 -0500*Ali Akhtar <ali.rac...@gmail.com
> <ali.rac...@gmail.com>>* wrote ----
>
> The labels collection is of the type set<frozen<label>> , where label is a
> udt containing: id, name, description , all text fields.
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Ali Akhtar <ali.rac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The problem isn't just the update / insert though, right? Don't frozen
> entities get overwritten completely? So if I had [1] [2] being written as
> updates, won't each update overwrite the set completely, so i'll end up
> with either one of them instead of [1,2]?
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 5:50 PM, DuyHai Doan <doanduy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe you should use my Achilles mapper, which does generates UPDATE
> statements on collections and not only INSERT
> Le 12 nov. 2016 13:08, "Ali Akhtar" <ali.rac...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> I am using the Java Cassandra mapper for all of these cases, so my code
> looks like this:
>
> Item myItem = myaccessor.get( itemId );
> Mapper<Item> mapper = mappingManager.create( Item.class );
>
> myItem.labels.add( newLabel );
> mapper.save( myItem );
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Ali Akhtar <ali.rac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks DuyHai, I will switch to using a set.
>
> But I'm still not sure how to resolve the original question.
>
> - Original labels = []
> - Request 1 arrives with label = 1, and request 2 arrives with label = 2
> - Updates are sent to c* with labels = [1] and labels = [2] simultaneously.
>
> What will happen in the above case? Will it cause the labels to end up as
> [1,2] (what I want) or either [1] or [2]?
>
> If I use consistency level = all, will that cause it to end up with [1,2]?
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 4:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <doanduy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Don't use list, use set instead. If you need ordering of insertion, use a
> map<timeuuid,text> where timeuuid is generated by the client to guarantee
> insertion order
>
> When setting a new value to a list, C* will do a read-delete-write
> internally e.g. read the current list, remove all its value (by a range
> tombstone) and then write the new list. Please note that prepend & append
> operations on list do not require this read-delete-write and thus performs
> slightly better
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Ali Akhtar <ali.rac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have a table where each record contains a list<string> of labels.
>
> I have an endpoint which responds to new labels being added to a record by
> the user.
>
> Consider the following scenario:
>
> - Record X, labels = []
> - User selects 2 labels, clicks a button, and 2 http requests are
> generated.
> - The server receives request for Label 1 and Label 2 at the same time.
> - Both requests see the labels as empty, add 1 label to the collection,
> and send it.
> - Record state as label 1 request sees it: [1], as label 2 sees it: [2]
>
> How will the above conflict be resolved? What can I do so I end up with
> [1, 2] instead of either [1] or [2] after both requests have been processed?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
