[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7423?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15174404#comment-15174404
]
Tyler Hobbs commented on CASSANDRA-7423:
----------------------------------------
Initial patch and CI tests:
||branch||testall||dtest||
|[CASSANDRA-7423|https://github.com/thobbs/cassandra/tree/CASSANDRA-7423]|[testall|http://cassci.datastax.com/view/Dev/view/thobbs/job/thobbs-CASSANDRA-7423-testall]|[dtest|http://cassci.datastax.com/view/Dev/view/thobbs/job/thobbs-CASSANDRA-7423-dtest]|
This adds support for non-frozen UDTs, which support single-field updates and
deletions. I've also added LWT support for UDTs (both on the value of
individual fields and the entire UDT) to match what we support with
collections. This patch does _not_ add support for nesting non-frozen UDTs and
collections -- nested types must still be frozen.
I would like to defer the optimization of selecting a single field from a
non-frozen UDT to another ticket. (Currently, we fetch all fields from disk,
then extract the selected fields.) We have roughly two months until the 3.6
release, and I have some higher priority work that I'd like to handle first.
There's also one tricky related issue: we do not currently require collections
inside UDT definitions to be declared with {{frozen<>}}. They are always
implicitly frozen. If we ever want to support nesting non-frozen collections
inside non-frozen UDTs (without introducing new syntax or breaking backwards
compat), we need to deprecate and warn on the current behavior, and then
require {{frozen<>}}. That can also be done in a separate ticket, but I wanted
to raise the issue here.
> Allow updating individual subfields of UDT
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-7423
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7423
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: CQL
> Reporter: Tupshin Harper
> Assignee: Tyler Hobbs
> Labels: client-impacting, cql, docs-impacting
> Fix For: 3.x
>
>
> Since user defined types were implemented in CASSANDRA-5590 as blobs (you
> have to rewrite the entire type in order to make any modifications), they
> can't be safely used without LWT for any operation that wants to modify a
> subset of the UDT's fields by any client process that is not authoritative
> for the entire blob.
> When trying to use UDTs to model complex records (particularly with nesting),
> this is not an exceptional circumstance, this is the totally expected normal
> situation.
> The use of UDTs for anything non-trivial is harmful to either performance or
> consistency or both.
> edit: to clarify, i believe that most potential uses of UDTs should be
> considered anti-patterns until/unless we have field-level r/w access to
> individual elements of the UDT, with individual timestamps and standard LWW
> semantics
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
