[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6668?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13911437#comment-13911437
]
DOAN DuyHai edited comment on CASSANDRA-6668 at 2/25/14 10:08 AM:
------------------------------------------------------------------
bq. we should probably reject TTL = 0
Please don't.
bq. but it's perfectly possible that someone uses a prepared statement with a
bind marker for the TTL, sometimes binding a strictly positive TTL and
sometimes binding 0 to get no expiration
It's the case for *Achilles*. It prepares a bunch of Insert/Update statements
before-hand with TTL and just set strictly positive value when there is an
TTLed insert/update
bq. my preferred semantic (all notion of backward compatibility aside) would be
to just never insert a row marker in UPDATE
+1 for that. Although I'm quite familiar with CQL3, I got caught with the TTL
subtlety related to the row TTL marker. I guess lots of people will also get
caught too on it.
was (Author: doanduyhai):
bq. we should probably reject TTL = 0
Please don't.
bq. but it's perfectly possible that someone uses a prepared statement with a
bind marker for the TTL, sometimes binding a strictly positive TTL and
sometimes binding 0 to get no expiration
It's the case for **Achilles**. It prepares a bunch of Insert/Update
statements before-hand with TTL and just set strictly positive value when there
is an TTLed insert/update
bq. my preferred semantic (all notion of backward compatibility aside) would be
to just never insert a row marker in UPDATE
+1 for that. Although I'm quite familiar with CQL3, I got caught with the TTL
subtlety related to the row TTL marker. I guess lots of people will also get
caught too on it.
> Inconsistent handling of row expiration using TTL in collections
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-6668
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6668
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Core
> Environment: Apache Cassandra 2.0.3
> Apache Cassandra 1.2.8
> CQLSH client 3.1.6
> Reporter: DOAN DuyHai
> Priority: Critical
>
> The expiration of row when all TTLed columns have expired is inconsistent
> Scenario 1)
> {code:sql}
> cqlsh:test> create table ttl_issue(id int primary key,collection set<text>);
> cqlsh:test> update ttl_issue USING TTL 2 set collection = collection +
> {'test_2'} where id=10;
> cqlsh:test> update ttl_issue USING TTL 3 set collection = collection +
> {'test_3'} where id=10;
> cqlsh:test> select * from ttl_issue;
> id | collection
> ----+----------------------
> 10 | {'test_2', 'test_3'}
> cqlsh:test> select * from ttl_issue;
> id | collection
> ----+----------------------
> 10 | {'test_2', 'test_3'}
> cqlsh:test> select * from ttl_issue;
> id | collection
> ----+------------
> 10 | {'test_3'}
> cqlsh:test> select * from ttl_issue;
> cqlsh:test>
> {code}
> As we can see, after a few seconds, both columns of the collection are
> expired. When all columns of the set have expired, the SELECT * FROM
> ttl_issue *returns no result, meaning that the whole row has expired.*
> Scenario 2)
> {code:sql}
> cqlsh:test> update ttl_issue USING TTL 3 set collection = collection +
> {'test_3'} where id=11;
> cqlsh:test> update ttl_issue USING TTL 1000 set collection = collection +
> {'test_1000'} where id=11;
> cqlsh:test> update ttl_issue set collection = collection - {'test_1000'}
> where id=11;
> cqlsh:test> select * from ttl_issue;
> id | collection
> ----+------------
> 11 | {'test_3'}
> cqlsh:test> select * from ttl_issue;
> id | collection
> ----+------------
> 11 | {'test_3'}
> cqlsh:test> select * from ttl_issue;
> id | collection
> ----+------------
> 11 | {'test_3'}
> cqlsh:test> select * from ttl_issue;
> id | collection
> ----+------------
> 11 | null
> {code}
> In this second scenario. We add elements to the collection with TTL but then
> remove one of them. *After a while, although all TTLed columns have expired,
> the row is till there with only the primary key present.*
> One should expect to get the same behavior as in scenario 1), e.g. the
> complete row should expire.
> I've also tried removing one element from collection using TTL 0
> ({code:sql}update ttl_issue USING TTL 0 set collection = collection -
> {'test_1000'} where id=11;{code}) but the result is the same.
> Quick guest: bug on row deletion marker for specific collection element
> append/remove ?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)
