[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7855?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14117371#comment-14117371
]
Sylvain Lebresne commented on CASSANDRA-7855:
---------------------------------------------
bq. Server side? Or should that be CLIENT side?
Correct, I meant client side, I've fixed that. No need to shout though.
bq. And terminology - this improvement is for "composite partition keys" -
"compound" refers to "primary keys" with clustering columns rather than just
the partition key portion of the primary key.
I don't remenber us ever deciding that "composite partition keys" was *the*
terminology for this, but in any case, I think the ticket description is
precise enough to not lead to confusion.
> Genralize use of IN for compound partition keys
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-7855
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7855
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Sylvain Lebresne
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: cql
> Fix For: 2.0.11
>
>
> When you have a compount partition key, we currently only support to have a
> {{IN}} on the last column of that partition key. So given:
> {noformat}
> CREATE TABLE foo (
> k1 int,
> k2 int,
> v int,
> PRIMARY KEY ((k1, k2))
> )
> {noformat}
> we allow
> {noformat}
> SELECT * FROM foo WHERE k1 = 0 AND k2 IN (1, 2)
> {noformat}
> but not
> {noformat}
> SELECT * FROM foo WHERE k1 IN (0, 1) AND k2 IN (1, 2)
> {noformat}
> There is no particular reason for us not supporting the later (to the best of
> my knowledge) since it's reasonably straighforward, so we should fix it.
> I'll note that using {{IN}} on a partition key is not necessarily a better
> idea than parallelizing queries server client side so this syntax, when
> introduced, should probably be used sparingly, but given we do support IN on
> partition keys, I see no reason not to extend it to compound PK properly.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
