Re: Batch isolation within a single partition

On 19.05.15 10:38, Stefan Podkowinski wrote: Multiple inserts for the same partition key within a batch will be consolidated into a single row update operation (since 2.0.6, #6737 ). Ie. you get the same row level isolation

Re: Batch isolation within a single partition

On 19.05.15 10:04, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 9:42 AM, DuyHai Doan > wrote: If RF > 1, the consistency level at QUORUM cannot guarantee strict isolation (for normal mutation or batch). If you look at this slide: http://www.slid

Re: Batch isolation within a single partition

Multiple inserts for the same partition key within a batch will be consolidated into a single row update operation (since 2.0.6, #6737). Ie. you get the same row level isolation guarantee

Re: Batch isolation within a single partition

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 9:42 AM, DuyHai Doan wrote: > If RF > 1, the consistency level at QUORUM cannot guarantee strict > isolation (for normal mutation or batch). If you look at this slide: > http://www.slideshare.net/doanduyhai/cassandra-introduction-apache-con-2014-budapest/25, > you can see

Re: Batch isolation within a single partition

If RF > 1, the consistency level at QUORUM cannot guarantee strict isolation (for normal mutation or batch). If you look at this slide: http://www.slideshare.net/doanduyhai/cassandra-introduction-apache-con-2014-budapest/25, you can see that the mutation is sent by the coordinator, in parallel, to

Re: Batch isolation within a single partition

Hi DuyHai, thanks for your answer. What if I set RF > 1 and the consistency level for reads and writes to QUORUM? Would that isolate the single-partition batch update from reads? (I do not consider node failures here between the write and the read(s)). On 19.05.15 07:50, DuyHai Doan wrote:

Re: Batch isolation within a single partition

Hello Martin If, and only if you have RF=1, single partition mutations (including batches) are isolated. Otherwise, with RF>1, even a simple UPDATE is not isolated because one client can read the updated value on one replica and another client reads the old value on another replica On Mon, May