I think we agree then! The fact that people misuse Cassandra is a whole separate issue and shouldn't hold the rest of us back. Adding obfuscation to CQL3 isn't the solution.
Give me a few more days to put a complete list together of what I think could be refined in CQL3 then we can pick this up again next week. I expect it will be a robust discussion :) ap On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com>wrote: > yes. It doesn't use foreign keys or any constraints, they slow things down. > > Exactly what you do not want. Check the history of the "features" that do > read before write. Counters, the old read before write secondary indexes, > the new collection functions that impose read before write. > > Once people start using them they send an email to cassandra mailing list > that goes like this: > " > Subject: Why is Cassandra so slow? > Message: I am using secondary indexes and as I write data I seem my > READ_STAGE is filling up. What is going on? I thought cassandra was faster > then MySQL? Once my database gets bigger then X GB it slows to a crawl. > Please help. > " > If we make tools that design anti-pattern schema's people will use them, no > one wins. > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Andrew Prendergast < > a...@andrewprendergast.com > > wrote: > > > *> > > > > > http://www.edwardcapriolo.com/roller/edwardcapriolo/entry/schema_vs_schema_less > > * > > Thanks for the link Ed, I'm aware of all that. > > > > *> Does your the tool handle the fact that foreign keys do not work? > > * > > yes. It doesn't use foreign keys or any constraints, they slow things > down. > > > > *> how are your dealing with the fact that a "primary key" in cassandra > is > > nothing like a "primary key" in a RDBMS? > > * > > locality preserving sequences & natural keys. There are no range queries. > > > > *> Generally under the impression that CRUD tools that auto-generate CQL > > schema's can give someone the rope to hang themselves. > > * > > For those of us that know what we are doing and have had to put up with > SQL > > based ETL, refining CQL3 would be life changing and ease the transition. > > > > ap > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.edwardcapriolo.com/roller/edwardcapriolo/entry/schema_vs_schema_less > > > > > > Does your the tool handle the fact that foreign keys do not work? Or > for > > > that matter, how are your dealing with the fact that a "primary key" in > > > cassandra is nothing like a "primary key" in a RDBMS? > > > > > > Generally under the impression that CRUD tools that auto-generate CQL > > > schema's can give someone the rope to hang themselves. > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Andrew Prendergast < > > > a...@andrewprendergast.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Tristan, > > > > > > > > I've spent the last couple weekends testing the CRUD DML stuff and > its > > > very > > > > close to meeting that objective (although NULL handling needs some > > > tuning). > > > > > > > > The main hiccups are in the JDBC driver which I have been working > > through > > > > with Rick - once he accepts my patches it'll be pretty solid in terms > > of > > > > cross-platform compatibility. > > > > > > > > On the DDL, I personally have a need for similar compatibility. One > app > > > I'm > > > > working on programmatically creates the schema for a rather big ETL > > > > environment. It includes a very nice abstraction that creates > databases > > > and > > > > tables to accommodate tuples as they pass through the pipeline and > > > behaves > > > > the same regardless of which DBMS is being used as the storage > engine. > > > > > > > > This is possible because it turns out there is a subset of DDL that > is > > > > common to all of the DBMS platforms and it would be very useful to > see > > > that > > > > in Cassandra. > > > > > > > > ap > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Tristan Tarrant > > > > <tristan.tarr...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Sylvain Lebresne < > > > sylv...@datastax.com > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > This is just one of a few small adjustments that can be made to > > the > > > > > > grammar > > > > > > > to make everyone's life easier while still maintaining the > spirit > > > of > > > > > > NOSQL. > > > > > > > > > > > > To be clear, I am *not* necessarily against making CQL3 closer to > > the > > > > > > ANSI-SQL > > > > > > as a convenience. But only if that doesn't compromise the > language > > > > > > "integrity" > > > > > > and is justified. Adding a syntax with a well known semantic but > > > > without > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To me database DDL (such as the CREATE statement we are talking > > about) > > > is > > > > > always going to be handled in a custom fashion by applications. > > > > > While ANSI SQL compatibility for CRUD operations is a great > > objective, > > > I > > > > > don't think it really matters for DDL. > > > > > > > > > > Tristan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
