i agreeeven Cassandra .3 was very usable On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Jonathan Ellis <[email protected]> wrote:
> IMO the window for making this kind of change has passed. We've > talked about finalizing the 0.4 api weeks ago, we got a beta out with > it, and it does the job. The timeline wasn't a surprise to anyone > paying attention to the list. It's time to move on. > > -Jonathan > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Evan Weaver<[email protected]> wrote: > > I think the below scheme successfully avoids the current > > misconceptions, and addresses the issues raised in the previous > > thread. > > > > The names are memorable and short, Anglo-Saxon-style, and take > > advantage of existing database concepts in non-conflicting ways. They > > are not ambiguous or novel. They descend step-by-step from the > > container to the thing contained. > > > > Proposal 2: > > > > Database > > Record set > > Record (w/key) > > Field set > > Field > > > > Notes: > > * Database is the same as in SQL/CouchDB/MongoDB > > * Record set is based on "record", below. It expresses a container of > > unique rows, without the BigTable baggage (see PS). > > * Record is the same as row, without the relational baggage. > > * Field set is based on "field", below, and parallels "record set". > > It expresses a container of unique fields. > > * Field is the same as in CouchDB, and does not carry the SQL baggage > > of "column", or the relational-theory baggage of "attribute". > > > > I think if we adopted these, we would quickly move from "most > > confusing data model" to "least confusing", based on my research into > > other popular terminology > > (http://markmail.org/thread/6vys3hk774zcrd6v). > > > > Evan > > > > ---- > > > > PS. The implementation of column families hasn't changed from > > BigTable, but the use in modeling has. Common Cassandra designs are > > more row-oriented than column-oriented. > > > > With that in mind, keyspace, row, and super-column could also each be > > called column family. They all have sets of related columns in them, > > among other things. Everything but the column itself is some kind of > > "column family". This is a big stumbling block. > > > > I want a new user to be able to look at any level and answer "what is > > the immediate container of this object?" If they can't do that, then > > the term is ambiguous. > > > > -- > > Evan Weaver > > > -- Bidegg worlds best auction site http://bidegg.com
