Thanks everyone.
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 at 01:00, Regis Le Bretonnic <r.lebreton...@meetic-corp.com> wrote: > > Hi Surbhi > > We do use cassandra materialized views even if not recommended. > There are known issues you have to make with. Despite of them, we still use > VM. > What we observe is : > * there are inconsistency issues but few. Most of them are rows that should > not exist in the MV... > * we made a spark script downloading the master table and the MV, and > comparing them and fixing data (as said previously we have very few errors > and we run it maybe once a year) > > * Things go very very very bad when you add or remove a node ! Limit this > operation if possible and do it knowing what can happen (we isolate the > ring/datacenter and fix data before putting it back to production. We did > this only once in the last 4 years). > > PS : all proposals avoiding MV failed for our project. Basically managing a > table like a MV (by deleting and inserting rows from code) is worse and more > corrupted than what MV does... > The worse issue is adding and removing nodes. Maybe cassandra 4 improves this > point (not tested yet). > > Have fun... > > Le mar. 8 août 2023 à 22:36, Surbhi Gupta <surbhi.gupt...@gmail.com> a écrit : >> >> Hi, >> >> We get complaints about Materialized View inconsistency issues. >> We are on 3.11.5 and on 3.11.5 Materialized Views were not production ready. >> We are ok to upgrade. >> >> On which version of cassandra MVs doesnt have inconsistency issues? >> >> Thanks >> Surbhi
