[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11067?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15133909#comment-15133909
]
Pavel Yaskevich edited comment on CASSANDRA-11067 at 2/5/16 10:00 AM:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
bq. A separate issue for figuring out the long term solution is great, but I
really think that not giving users a crappy experience out of the box in cases
where we can easily avoid it is a good idea. Is there a problem with not
allowing range queries on literals that I've overlooked?
The reason being that there is no efficient data structure which does support
both range and prefix/suffix traversals on the literal queries as well as it is
not very useful to do range queries on words anyway and it wasn't supported
originally, only equals was available for literal indexes. Also I would like to
note that range queries work file for numerical types since it makes more sense
to ask such types for ranges.
Edit: [~beobal] does "is_literal" option have confusing name? It's original
intention is to emphasize that given type consists of letters and should be
considered a word (or sequence of words) and treated like a one, which means
that if "int" column is marked literal is no longer a number but rather a
sequence of unicode code points and range operation in it's regular sense it
not supported but instead prefix/suffix queries are available.
was (Author: xedin):
bq. A separate issue for figuring out the long term solution is great, but I
really think that not giving users a crappy experience out of the box in cases
where we can easily avoid it is a good idea. Is there a problem with not
allowing range queries on literals that I've overlooked?
The reason being that there is no efficient data structure which does support
both range and prefix/suffix traversals on the literal queries as well as it is
not very useful to do range queries on words anyway and it wasn't supported
originally, only equals was available for literal indexes. Also I would like to
note that range queries work file for numerical types since it makes more sense
to ask such types for ranges.
> Improve SASI syntax
> -------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-11067
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11067
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: CQL
> Reporter: Jonathan Ellis
> Assignee: Pavel Yaskevich
> Fix For: 3.4
>
>
> I think everyone agrees that a LIKE operator would be ideal, but that's
> probably not in scope for an initial 3.4 release.
> Still, I'm uncomfortable with the initial approach of overloading = to mean
> "satisfies index expression." The problem is that it will be very difficult
> to back out of this behavior once people are using it.
> I propose adding a new operator in the interim instead. Call it MATCHES,
> maybe. With the exact same behavior that SASI currently exposes, just with a
> separate operator rather than being rolled into =.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
