Thanks, so maybe to rephrase: Cassandra guarantees reads and writes to be atomic within a single row.
But this isn't saying much... so maybe just take it off... On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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? > > > > >
