Thanks for the clarification, Jim. I didn't know the first comparator was
defined as DateType. Yeah, in that case, the beginning of the epoch is the
only choice.
-- Y.
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Jim Ancona <j...@anconafamily.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Yiming Sun <yiming....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Interesting idea, Jim. Is there a reason you don't you use
> > "metadata:{accountId}" instead? For performance reasons?
>
> No, because the column comparator is defined as
> CompositeType(DateType, AsciiType), and all column names must conform
> to that.
>
> Jim
>
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Jim Ancona <j...@anconafamily.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I've used "special" values which still comply with the Composite
> >> schema for the metadata columns, e.g. a column of
> >> 1970-01-01:{accountId} for a metadata column where the Composite is
> >> DateType:UTF8Type.
> >>
> >> Jim
> >>
> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Yiming Sun <yiming....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > Thanks Andrey and Chris. It sounds like we don't necessarily have to
> >> > use
> >> > composite columns. From what I understand about dynamic CF, each row
> >> > may
> >> > have completely different data from other rows; but in our case, the
> >> > data
> >> > in each row is similar to other rows; my concern was more about the
> >> > homogeneity of the data between columns.
> >> >
> >> > In our original supercolumn-based schema, one special supercolumn is
> >> > called
> >> > "metadata" which contains a number of subcolumns to hold metadata
> >> > describing
> >> > each collection (e.g. number of documents, etc.), then the rest of the
> >> > supercolumns in the same row are all IDs of documents belong to the
> >> > collection, and for each document supercolumn, the subcolumns contain
> >> > the
> >> > document content as well as metadata on individual document (e.g.
> >> > checksum
> >> > of each document).
> >> >
> >> > To move away from the supercolumn schema, I could either create two
> CFs,
> >> > one
> >> > to hold metadata, the other document content; or I could create just
> one
> >> > CF
> >> > mixing metadata and doc content in the same row, and using composite
> >> > column
> >> > names to identify if the particular column is metadata or a document.
> I
> >> > am
> >> > just wondering if you have any inputs on the pros and cons of each
> >> > schema.
> >> >
> >> > -- Y.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Chris Gerken
> >> > <chrisger...@mindspring.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 4 February 2012 06:21, Yiming Sun <yiming....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I cannot have one composite column name with 3 components while
> >> >>> another
> >> >>> with 4 components?
> >> >>
> >> >> Just put 4 components and left last empty (if it is same type)?!
> >> >>
> >> >>> Another question I have is how flexible composite columns actually
> >> >>> are.
> >> >>> If my data model has a CF containing US zip codes with the
> following
> >> >>> composite columns:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> {OH:Spring Field} : 45503
> >> >>> {OH:Columbus} : 43085
> >> >>> {FL:Spring Field} : 32401
> >> >>> {FL:Key West} : 33040
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I know I can ask cassandra to "give me the zip codes of all cities
> in
> >> >>> OH". But can I ask it to "give me the zip codes of all cities named
> >> >>> Spring
> >> >>> Field" using this model? Thanks.
> >> >>
> >> >> No. You set first composite component at first.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I'd use a dynamic CF:
> >> >> row key = state abbreviation
> >> >> column name = city name
> >> >> column value = zip code (or a complex object, one of whose properties
> >> >> is
> >> >> zip code)
> >> >>
> >> >> you can iterate over the columns in a single row to get a state's
> city
> >> >> names and their zip code and you can do a get_range_slices on all
> keys
> >> >> for
> >> >> the columns starting and ending on the city name to find out the zip
> >> >> codes
> >> >> for a cities with the given name.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think
> >> >>
> >> >> - Chris
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
>
