In this case, it sounds like you should combine columns A and B if you are writing them both at the same time, reading them both at the same time, and need them to be consistent.
Obviously, you're probably dealing with more than two columns here, but there's generally not any value in splitting something into multiple columns if you're always writing and reading all of them at the same time. Or are you talking about chunking huge blobs across a row? - Tyler On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:12 AM, E S <tr1skl...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I'm trying to figure out the best way to achieve single row modification > isolation for readers. > > As an example, I have 2 rows (1,2) with 2 columns (a,b). If I modify both > rows, > I don't care if the user sees the write operations completed on 1 and not > on 2 > for a short time period (seconds). I also don't care if when reading row 1 > the > user gets the new value, and then on a re-read gets the old value (within a > few > seconds). Because of this, I have been planning on using a consistency > level of > one. > > However, if I modify both columns A,B on a single row, I need both changes > on > the row to be visible/invisible atomically. It doesn't matter if they both > become visible and then both invisible as the data propagates across nodes, > but > a half-completed state on an initial read will basically be returning > corrupt > data given my apps consistency requirements. My understanding from the FAQ > that > this single row multicolumn change provides no read isolation, so I will > have > this problem. Is this correct? If so: > > Question 1: Is there a way to get this type of isolation without using a > distributed locking mechanism like cages? > > Question 2: Are there any plans to implement this type of isolation within > Cassandra? > > Question 3: If I went with a distributed locking mechanism, what > consistency > level would I need to use with Cassandra? Could I still get away with a > consistency level of one? It seems that if the initial write is done in a > non-isolated way, but if cross-node row synchronizations are done all or > nothing, I could still use one. > > Question 4: Does anyone know of a good c# alternative to cages/zookeeper? > > Thanks for any help with this! > > > > >
