[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1600?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12921352#action_12921352
]
Jonathan Ellis commented on CASSANDRA-1600:
-------------------------------------------
> we'd be setting people up for their unbounded scans to succeed in testing,
> and then cause cascading failures in production by going into retry loops
we already have this problem with the existing get_range_slices and excessively
large count values. it turns out that allowing people to do more
powerful/efficient things is the right choice even when it is potentially
dangerous.
> Merge get_indexed_slices with get_range_slices
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-1600
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1600
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: API
> Reporter: Stu Hood
> Fix For: 0.7.0
>
> Attachments:
> 0001-Add-optional-IndexClause-to-KeyRange-and-serialize-w.patch,
> 0002-Drop-the-IndexClause.count-parameter.patch,
> 0003-Execute-RangeSliceCommands-using-scan-when-an-IndexC.patch,
> 0004-Remove-get_indexed_slices-method.patch,
> 0005-Update-system-tests-to-use-get_range_slices.patch,
> 0006-Remove-start_key-from-IndexClause-for-the-start_key-.patch,
> 0007-Respect-end_key-for-filtered-queries.patch
>
>
> From a comment on 1157:
> {quote}
> IndexClause only has a start key for get_indexed_slices, but it would seem
> that the reasoning behind using 'KeyRange' for get_range_slices applies there
> as well, since if you know the range you care about in the primary index, you
> don't want to continue scanning until you exhaust 'count' (or the cluster).
> Since it would appear that get_indexed_slices would benefit from a KeyRange,
> why not smash get_(range|indexed)_slices together, and make IndexClause an
> optional field on KeyRange?
> {quote}
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
