I answered my own question with a test:
Using default limit of 100 ------------------- RowKey: test => (column=89b81b00-d0f3-11e1-8d4c-000c29d2a972:A, value=, timestamp=1342628020428000, ttl=10) => (column=89b81b00-d0f3-11e1-8d4c-000c29d2a972:B, value=, timestamp=1342628020428000, ttl=30) 1 Row Returned. Elapsed time: 4 msec(s). [default@context] list context_session_views; Using default limit of 100 ------------------- RowKey: test => (column=89b81b00-d0f3-11e1-8d4c-000c29d2a972:B, value=, timestamp=1342628020428000, ttl=30) 1 Row Returned. Elapsed time: 3 msec(s). On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:06 AM, rohit bhatia <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I don't think that composite columns have "parent columns". your point > might be true for supercolumns .. > but each composite column is probably independent.. > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Thomas Van de Velde > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > I am trying to understand the expiration behavior of composite columns. > > Assume I have two entries both have the same parent column name but each > one > > has a different ttl. Would expiration be applied at the parent column > level > > (taking into account ttls set per column under the parent and expiring > all > > of the child columns when the most recent ttl is met) or is each each > child > > entry expired independently? > > > > Would this be correct? > > > > A:B->ttl=5 > > A:C->ttl=10 > > > > > > t+5: Nothing gets expired (because A:C's expiration has not yet been > > reached) > > t+10: Both A:B and A:C are expired > > > > > > Thanks, > > Thomas >
