It's correct, if understood correctly. We should probably just remove it since it's confusing as written.
What it means is, if a write for a given row is acked, eventually, _all_ the data updated _in that row_ will be available for reads. So no, it's not atomic at the batch_mutate level but at the list<ColumnOrSuperColumn> level. -Jonathan On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Ran Tavory <ran...@gmail.com> wrote: > The front page http://incubator.apache.org/cassandra/ states that "Cassandra > guarantees reads and writes to be atomic within a single ColumnFamily." > What exactly does that mean, and where can I learn more about this? > It sounds like it means that batch_insert() and batch_mutate() for two > different rows but in the same CF is atomic. Is this correct? > >
