The only one I know is the one listed in http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/CassandraLimitations
The sub columns in a super column are not indexed, so the entire super column must be read into memory when accessed. I've tried using Super Columns and namespacing columns in a standard column, e.g. columns called "foo.bar". But prefer using Super Columns when representing one "entity" with different groups of columns. Aaron On 21 Jun 2010, at 20:33, David Boxenhorn wrote: > I have a column family that doesn't need to be a supercolumn family right > now, but I think it *might* need to be one in the future. I'm considering > making it a supercolumn family with only one supercolumn per row to give me > flexibility going forward. > > My question: Is there a penalty to this? If there is, I will make it a > regular column family and hope for the best.
