[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-3634?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13188149#comment-13188149
]
Eric Evans commented on CASSANDRA-3634:
---------------------------------------
bq. Given that the primary purpose of a "real" PS api is for performance
(otherwise we could just fake it client-side the way we used to with JDBC), and
the feedback from client devs was mixed, I propose that we proceed with the
binary PS api. Client implementers who do not wish to deal with this can
continue to use the pure string based, non-PS API, and they are no worse off
than before.
We don't exactly have consensus, but it's pretty obvious at this point that we
probably never will. And as Rick points out, we need to nail down something.
Does anyone want to take another look at the changes before committing?
https://github.com/eevans/cassandra/tree/3634.rebased
> compare string vs. binary prepared statement parameters
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-3634
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-3634
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: API, Core
> Reporter: Eric Evans
> Assignee: Eric Evans
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: cql
> Fix For: 1.1
>
>
> Perform benchmarks to compare the performance of string and pre-serialized
> binary parameters to prepared statements.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
