Why? Please give me 3 reasons why this is good advice to the OP. The frame based binary protocol will be 100% easier to implement in C than the never-been-out-of-alpha libc Thrift implementation. I¹ve worked with that code for a while, it¹s *not* pretty.
I can¹t think of one reason, other than ³I already have legacy code written around it² Thrift is better than the Native Protocol. So please backup your claim before spreading false information to the community. On 8/5/13, 10:46 PM, "Aswani Kumar Vonteddu" <as.wins.c...@hotmail.com> wrote: >I'd recommend Thrift. > >> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 14:08:52 -0500 >> Subject: CQL or Thrift ? >> From: nulik...@gmail.com >> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org >> >> Hi, >> I need a client in C (not C++) to work with Cassandra, so since there >> is no one yet I would do my own. So far I have checked, I can do it >> through Thrift RPC port, or through CQL port. As I understand, CQL >> doesn't support direct "mutate" or "get_range_slices" calls like >> Thrift does , so being Thrift API more low level, it should be faster >> for specific queries my application would execute. The question is, >> what do you recommend me to use, Thrift or CQL3 native protocol? >> Thrift API supports CQL , but not the other way around. If commands >> go through CQL, there will be some Java code executed and I don't know >> which would be faster, sending the raw "mutate"s through thrift by C >> application or executing a prepared CQL3 query by Java? I am >> interested more in performance, rather than in easiness of use. Will >> appreciate very much your comments. >> >> Nulik >
