On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 14:46 -0700, Chip Salzenberg wrote: > Short answer: "YES Please, but we will still want a side channel for > minimum overhead."
Ok. Though I'm not sure I agree with the "minimum overhead" argument. I've only done preliminary tests so far, but this seems on par (if not a little faster) than Thrift is, and no effort to optimize has been made (using a socket transport instead of HTTP for example would make a big difference). > Long answer: Query languages only work reliably when you have data > binding assistance (insert "Bobby Tables" xkcd here). However, they > do > have the wonderful property of evolving aggressively without requiring > upgrades of the driver plumbing. This is, of course, emphatically > *not* > true of anything like the current Thrift and Avro interfaces. So > that's > why I say "Yes." On the other hand, a very simple interface for very > simple queries has a lot of value, too; see, for example, > http://yoshinorimatsunobu.blogspot.com/2010/10/using-mysql-as-nosql-story-for.html > > So that's why I think we will still want to bypass the full language > for minimum latency in some circumstances. I'm also not sure I follow here either. Do you mean simple for the application developer? CQL-using code should be considerably simpler than the equivalent Thrift/Avro. Thanks for the feedback! -- Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com
