[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7423?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15176045#comment-15176045
]
Tyler Hobbs commented on CASSANDRA-7423:
----------------------------------------
That makes sense -- I'm not sure why I didn't think of that yesterday. I've
force-pushed an update to the branch that checks for non-frozen collections
nested within non-frozen UDTs when creating a table.
> 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)
