[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6477?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14626635#comment-14626635
]
Sylvain Lebresne commented on CASSANDRA-6477:
---------------------------------------------
{quote}
Changing this would also imply that
{noformat}
INSERT INTO (k,t) VALUES (0, 0);
{noformat}
would create a row in the view as well for (0, null, 0).
{quote}
Absolutely. And to be clear, all I'm saying is, we should make sure we're all
in agreement and comfortable with the semantic we implement (and we should be
clear on what that semantic is exactly). To have every row in the base table
having a counterpart in the MV is something I would have expected. Are we sure
we are fine with giving up that property? Or to put it another way, if we do
give up that property, I'd like to make sure we understand why we are doing so,
and I'm not all that clear on that. Is everyone except me convinced that a
{{null}} for a column that is part of the MV primary key should mean the row is
not in the MV?
> 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, users.yaml
>
>
> 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)
