[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6477?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14617622#comment-14617622
]
Joshua McKenzie commented on CASSANDRA-6477:
--------------------------------------------
bq. it's also nice to keep the discussion in Jira so that it's easier to
understand past design decisions when you look at tickets
I was thinking about that. We absolutely don't want to lose discussion history;
I was thinking naming these types of branches <ticketnum>_review and having a
policy of never deleting _review branches so they could be referenced for
historical purposes. Not a particularly official / formal approach however with
no safeguards other than behavior, and also dependent on github not
archiving/removing old branches, space issues on there, etc.
The difficulty of transposing review information into a jira comment and
convenience is secondary to the fact that this approach takes my comments out
of the immediate context of what I'm thinking, requiring a translation from me
to here and from here back to whomever; my worry is that there's more chance of
something getting lost in translation there.
But yeah - dev ML seems the way to go for this topic.
> Materialized Views (was: Global Indexes)
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-6477
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6477
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: API, Core
> Reporter: Jonathan Ellis
> Assignee: Carl Yeksigian
> Labels: cql
> Fix For: 3.0 beta 1
>
> Attachments: test-view-data.sh
>
>
> Local indexes are suitable for low-cardinality data, where spreading the
> index across the cluster is a Good Thing. However, for high-cardinality
> data, local indexes require querying most nodes in the cluster even if only a
> handful of rows is returned.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
