That's correct.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Michael Pearson <mjpear...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the Gossip note, I'll keep reading up on the protocols. > For key/column/disk I meant in terms of the Cassandra limitation - > > "The main limitation on column and supercolumn size is that all data > for a single key and column must fit (on disk) on a single machine in > the cluster." > > Is it right to think an entire supercolumn (so, possibly a very wide > supercolumn of large object columns depending on the applications data > model) needs to fit on a single node or am I off the mark. > > -Michael > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Michael Pearson <mjpear...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I'd imagine the gossip overhead and key/column per disk limitation is >>> too open for abuse to recommend storing lob columns with any level of >>> predictability, particularly if frequent updates are involved. >> >> Gossip overhead is constant for a given cluster size. What do you >> mean by key/column per disk limitation? >> >> -Jonathan >> >
