I agree, that is the way to go. Then each piece of new functionality will
not have to be implemented twice.
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Stu Hood stuh...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to continue to support super columns, but to slowly convert
them into compound column names, since that is
I've found super column families quite useful when using
RandomOrderedPartioner on a low-maintenance cluster (as opposed to
Byte/Ordered), e.g. returning ordered data from a TimeUUID comparator type;
try doing that with one regular column family and secondary indexes (you
could obviously sort on
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:03 AM, David Boxenhorn da...@lookin2.com wrote:
Shaun, I agree with you, but marking them as deprecated is not good enough
for me. I can't easily stop using supercolumns. I need an upgrade path.
David,
Cassandra is open source and community developed. The right thing
I still think super-columns are useful you just need to be aware of
the limitations...
Bye,
Norman
2011/2/9 Mike Malone m...@simplegeo.com:
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:03 AM, David Boxenhorn da...@lookin2.com wrote:
Shaun, I agree with you, but marking them as deprecated is not good enough
for
On Thu, 2011-02-03 at 15:35 -0800, Mike Malone wrote:
In my dealings with the Cassandra code, super columns end up making a
mess all over the place when algorithms need to be special cased and
branch based on the column/supercolumn distinction.
I won't even mention what it does to the
: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 20:59
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: Do supercolumns have a purpose?
I still think super-columns are useful you just need to be aware of
the limitations...
Bye,
Norman
2011/2/9 Mike Malone m...@simplegeo.com:
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:03 AM, David Boxenhorn
Mike, my problem is that I have an database and codebase that already uses
supercolumns. If I had to do it over, it wouldn't use them, for the reasons
you point out. In fact, I have a feeling that over time supercolumns will
become deprecated de facto, if not de jure. That's why I would like to
Shaun, I agree with you, but marking them as deprecated is not good enough
for me. I can't easily stop using supercolumns. I need an upgrade path.
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Shaun Cutts sh...@cuttshome.net wrote:
I'm a newbie here, but, with apologies for my presumptuousness, I think you
I'm a newbie here, but, with apologies for my presumptuousness, I think you
should deprecate SuperColumns. They are already distracting you, and as the
years go by the cost of supporting them as you add more and more functionality
is only likely to get worse. It would be better to concentrate
My main point was to say that it's think it is better to create tickets for
what you want, rather than for something else completely different that
would, as a by-product, give you what you want.
Then let me say what I want: I want supercolumn families to have any feature
that regular column
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Mike Malone m...@simplegeo.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Sylvain Lebresne sylv...@datastax.comwrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:00 PM, David Boxenhorn da...@lookin2.comwrote:
The advantage would be to enable secondary indexes on supercolumn
Is there any advantage to using supercolumns
(columnFamilyName[superColumnName[columnName[val]]]) instead of regular
columns with concatenated keys
(columnFamilyName[superColumnName@columnName[val]])?
When I designed my data model, I used supercolumns wherever I needed two
levels of key
Thanks Sylvain!
Can I vote for internally implementing supercolumn families as regular
column families? (With a smooth upgrade process that doesn't require
shutting down a live cluster.)
What if supercolumn families were supported as regular column families + an
index (on what used to be
The advantage would be to enable secondary indexes on supercolumn families.
I understand from this thread that indexes are supercolumn families are not
going to be:
http://www.mail-archive.com/user@cassandra.apache.org/msg09527.html
Which, it seems to me, effectively deprecates supercolumn
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:00 PM, David Boxenhorn da...@lookin2.com wrote:
The advantage would be to enable secondary indexes on supercolumn families.
Then I suggest opening a ticket for adding secondary indexes to supercolumn
families and voting on it. This will be 1 or 2 order of magnitude
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Sylvain Lebresne sylv...@datastax.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:00 PM, David Boxenhorn da...@lookin2.com wrote:
The advantage would be to enable secondary indexes on supercolumn
families.
Then I suggest opening a ticket for adding secondary indexes to
Well, I am an actual active developer and I have managed to do pretty
nice stuffs with Cassandra - without secondary indexes so far. But I'm
looking forward to having secondary indexes in my arsenal when new
functional requirements come up, and I'm bummed out that my early design
decision to use
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Sylvain Lebresne sylv...@datastax.comwrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:00 PM, David Boxenhorn da...@lookin2.com wrote:
The advantage would be to enable secondary indexes on supercolumn
families.
Then I suggest opening a ticket for adding secondary indexes to
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Mike Malone m...@simplegeo.com wrote:
It seems to me that super columns are a historical artifact from Cassandra's
early life as Facebook's inbox storage system. They needed posting lists of
messages, sharded by user. So that's what they built. In my dealings
19 matches
Mail list logo
