On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Alexander Staubo<[email protected]> wrote: > If that's your point, you could have made it clearer. You will not > achieve that goal by calling it a "namespace". I would argue that > users tend to be more familiar with the idea of a "table"
That's exactly the problem: they *think* they know what "table" means, but in Cassandra the correct analog is the ColumnFamily (modulo denormalization and other changes of course). To a first approximation it's *never* correct to map a relational table to a cassandra table. > and the > fact that you can use Cassandra naively as a simple table makes it > easier to get started with the basics: "Oh, I see, I can use like a > MySQL table or a persistent kind of Memcached store." And then later, > when the user is ready to put away his/her chilish things: "Oh, I can > use it in this weird multidimensional way! Cool!" Actually, Cassandra doesn't support multidimensional cells a la Bigtable. So the situation is worse than I originally thought: not only are we confusing people from a relational background, we are causing people who read Bigtable to assume that Cassandra is more similar to BT than it really is. Both of these can be fixed with a terminology change. -Jonathan
