The correct way to accomplish what you describe is the new (in 0.7)
per-column TTL. Simply set this to 60 * 60 * 24 * 90 (90 day's worth of
seconds) and your columns will magically disappear after that length of
time.
Although that assumes it's okay to loose data or that there is some
other
[mailto:sc...@scode.org] On Behalf Of Peter Schuller
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 8:48 AM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: rolling window of data
The correct way to accomplish what you describe is the new (in 0.7)
per-column TTL. Simply set this to 60 * 60 * 24 * 90 (90 day's worth
...@scode.org [mailto:sc...@scode.org] On Behalf Of Peter Schuller
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 8:48 AM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: rolling window of data
The correct way to accomplish what you describe is the new (in 0.7)
per-column TTL. Simply set this to 60 * 60 * 24 * 90 (90 day's
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Jeffrey Wang jw...@palantir.com wrote:
To be a little more clear, a simplified version of what I'm asking is:
Let's say you add 1K columns with timestamps 1 to 1000. Then, at an
arbitrarily distant point in the future, if you call remove on that CF with
Hi,
We're trying to use Cassandra 0.7 to store a rolling window of log data (e.g.
last 90 days). We use the timestamp of the log entries as the column names so
we can do time range queries. Everything seems to be working fine, but it's not
clear if there is an efficient way to delete data
This project may provide some inspiration for youhttps://github.com/thobbs/logsandraNot sure if it has a rolling window, if you find out let me know :)AaronOn 03 Feb, 2011,at 06:08 PM, Jeffrey Wang jw...@palantir.com wrote:Hi,Were trying to use Cassandra 0.7 to store a rolling window of log data
@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: rolling window of data
This project may provide some inspiration for you
https://github.com/thobbs/logsandra
Not sure if it has a rolling window, if you find out let me know :)
Aaron
On 03 Feb, 2011,at 06:08 PM, Jeffrey Wang jw...@palantir.com wrote:
Hi,
We're trying to use