Yes that makes a lot of sense! on using remaining() method I see the proper expected sizes.
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Sylvain Lebresne <sylv...@datastax.com>wrote: > I am not familiar enough with Hector to tell you if it is doing something > special here, but note that: > > 1) you may have better luck getting that kind of question answered > quickly by using the Hector mailing list. > > 2) that may or may not change what you're seeing (since again I don't > know what Hector is actually doing), but "bb.array().length" is not a > reliable way to get the effective length of a ByteBuffer, as it is > perfectly > legit to have a byte buffer only use parts of it's underlying array. You > should use the remaining() method instead. > > -- > Sylvain > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Ertio Lew <ertio...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry I forgot to tell that I'm using Hector to communicate with > Cassandra. > > CS.toByteBuffer is to convert the composite type name to ByteBuffer. > > > > Can anyone aware of Hector API enlighten me why am I seeing this size for > > the composite type names. > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 2:52 PM, aaron morton <aa...@thelastpickle.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> What is the definition of the composite type and what is CS.toByteBuffer > >> ? > >> > >> CompositeTypes have a small overhead > >> see > https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/trunk/src/java/org/apache/cassandra/db/marshal/CompositeType.java > >> > >> Hope that helps. > >> Aaron > >> > >> ----------------- > >> Aaron Morton > >> Freelance Developer > >> @aaronmorton > >> http://www.thelastpickle.com > >> > >> On 2/01/2012, at 6:25 PM, Ertio Lew wrote: > >> > >> I am storing composite column names which are made up of two integer > >> components. However I am shocked after seeing the storage overhead of > these. > >> > >> I just tried out a composite name (with single integer component): > >> > >> Composite composite = new Composite(); > >> composite.addComponent(-165376575,is); > >> > >> System.out.println(CS.toByteBuffer( composite ).array().length); // the > >> result is 256 > >> > >> > >> After writing & then reading back this composite column from cassandra: > >> > >> > >> > System.out.println(CS.toByteBuffer( readColumn.getName() ).array().length); > >> // the result is 91 > >> > >> > >> How much is the storage overhead, as I am quite sure that I'm making a > >> mistake in realizing the actual values ? > >> > >> > > >
