[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6477?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14631767#comment-14631767
]
Jon Haddad commented on CASSANDRA-6477:
---------------------------------------
It seems odd to me that as a user I'd ask for a certain consistency level and I
would get a successful response that was essentially footnoted with "not
really".
Perhaps I was using batching incorrectly, but in my experience I found it
useful to keep multiple views of my data up to date, and I was doing so at
QUORUM because I needed to be strongly consistent. Not having it even as an
option kills a lot of use cases.
This next part is up for debate, but is based on the conversations and
questions I've had with people at Cassandra Day. This feature is a big deal for
people coming from the RDBMS world - probably more so than existing users.
There's usually quite a bit of discussion around this topic. At my last talk,
I brought up materialized views and people bit onto it like a dog with a bone.
I feel like mandatory async is a strange caveat that would be unexpected for
these people.
> 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)
