Is there a reason you would prefer a JSONType over CASSANDRA-3647? It would seem the only thing a JSON type offers you is validation. 3647 takes it much further by deconstructing a JSON document using composite columns to flatten the document out, with the ability to access and update portions of the document (as well as reconstruct it).
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Ben McCann <b...@benmccann.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I was wondering if it would be interesting to add some type of > document-oriented data type. > > I've found it somewhat awkward to store document-oriented data in Cassandra > today. I can make a JSON/Protobuf/Thrift, serialize it, and store it, but > Cassandra cannot differentiate it from any other string or byte array. > However, if my column validation_class could be a JsonType that would > allow tools to potentially do more interesting introspection on the column > value. E.g. bug 3647 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-3647>calls for > supporting arbitrarily nested "documents" in CQL. Running a > query against the JSON column in Pig is possible as well, but again in this > use case it would be helpful to be able to encode in column metadata that > the column is stored as JSON. For debugging, running nightly reports, etc. > it would be quite useful compared to the opaque string and byte array types > we have today. JSON is appealing because it would be easy to implement. > Something like Thrift or Protocol Buffers would actually be interesting > since they would be more space efficient. However, they would also be a > bit more difficult to implement because of the extra typing information > they provide. I'm hoping with Cassandra 1.0's addition of compression that > storing JSON is not too inefficient. > > Would there be interest in adding a JsonType? I could look at putting a > patch together. > > Thanks, > Ben > -- http://twitter.com/tjake
