> As long as it is valid in the paging protocol to return a short page, but > still say “there are more pages”, I think that is fine to do that. Thankfully the v3-v5 spec all make it clear that clients need to respect what the server has to say about there being more pages: https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/trunk/doc/native_protocol_v5.spec#L1247-L1253
> - Clients should not rely on the actual size of the result set returned to > decide if there are more results to fetch or not. Instead, they should > always > check the Has_more_pages flag (unless they did not enable paging for the > query > obviously). Clients should also not assert that no result will have more > than > <result_page_size> results. While the current implementation always > respects > the exact value of <result_page_size>, we reserve the right to return > slightly smaller or bigger pages in the future for performance reasons. On Mon, Jun 12, 2023, at 3:19 PM, Jeremiah Jordan wrote: > As long as it is valid in the paging protocol to return a short page, but > still say “there are more pages”, I think that is fine to do that. For an > actual LIMIT that is part of the user query, I think the server must always > have returned all data that fits into the LIMIT when all pages have been > returned. > > -Jeremiah > > On Jun 12, 2023 at 12:56:14 PM, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Yeah, my bad. I have paging on the brain. Seriously. >> >> I can't think of a use-case in which a LIMIT based on # bytes makes sense >> from a user perspective. >> >> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023, at 1:35 PM, Jeff Jirsa wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 9:50 AM Benjamin Lerer <b.le...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> If you have rows that vary significantly in their size, your latencies >>>>> could end up being pretty unpredictable using a LIMIT BY <row_count>. >>>>> Being able to specify a limit by bytes at the driver / API level would >>>>> allow app devs to get more deterministic results out of their interaction >>>>> w/the DB if they're looking to respond back to a client within a certain >>>>> time frame and / or determine next steps in the app (continue paging, >>>>> stop, etc) based on how long it took to get results back. >>>> >>>> Are you talking about the page size or the LIMIT. Once the LIMIT is >>>> reached there is no "continue paging". LIMIT is also at the CQL level not >>>> at the driver level. >>>> I can totally understand the need for a page size in bytes not for a LIMIT. >>> >>> Would only ever EXPECT to see a page size in bytes, never a LIMIT >>> specifying bytes. >>> >>> I know the C-11745 ticket says LIMIT, too, but that feels very odd to me. >>> >>
