Nope, upgraded to 2.0.5 and still get the same problem, I actually
simplified the problem a little in my first post, there's a composite
primary key involved as I need to partition ids into groups
So the full CQL statements are:
CREATE KEYSPACE test WITH replication = {'class':'SimpleStrategy',
'replication_factor':3};
CREATE TABLE test.documents (group text,id bigint,data
map<text,text>,PRIMARY KEY (group, id));
INSERT INTO test.documents(id,group,data) VALUES (0,'test',{'count':'0'});
INSERT INTO test.documents(id,group,data) VALUES (1,'test',{'count':'1'});
INSERT INTO test.documents(id,group,data) VALUES (2,'test',{'count':'2'});
SELECT id,data FROM test.documents WHERE group='test' AND id IN (0,1,2);
Thanks for your help.
Kind regards,
/Dave
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:00 PM, David Savage <davemssav...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hmmm that maybe the problem, I'm currently testing with 2.0.2 which got
> dragged in by the cassandra unit library I'm using for testing [1] I will
> try to fix my build dependencies and retry, thx.
>
> /Dave
>
> [1] https://github.com/jsevellec/cassandra-unit
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Laing, Michael <michael.la...@nytimes.com
> > wrote:
>
>> I have no problem doing this w 2.0.5 - what version of C* are you using?
>> Or maybe I don't understand your data model... attach 'creates' if you
>> don't mind.
>>
>> ml
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:24 AM, David Savage <davemssav...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the help, unfortunately I'm not sure that's the problem, the
>>> id is the primary key on the documents table and the timestamp is the
>>> primary key on the eventlog table
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> On Thursday, 13 March 2014, Peter Lin <wool...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> it's not clear to me if your "id" column is the KEY or just a regular
>>>> column with secondary index.
>>>>
>>>> queries that have IN on non primary key columns isn't supported yet.
>>>> not sure if that answers your question.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:12 AM, David Savage
>>>> <davemssav...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm experimenting using cassandra and have run across an error message
>>>>> which I need a little more information on.
>>>>>
>>>>> The use case I'm experimenting with is a series of document updates
>>>>> (documents being an arbitrary map of key value pairs), I would like to
>>>>> find
>>>>> the latest document updates after a specified time period. I don't want to
>>>>> store many copies of the documents (one per update) as the updates are
>>>>> often only to single keys in the map so that would involve a lot of
>>>>> duplicated data.
>>>>>
>>>>> The solution I've found that seems to fit best in terms of performance
>>>>> is to have two tables.
>>>>>
>>>>> One that has an event log of timeuuid -> docid and a second that
>>>>> stores the documents themselves stored by docid -> map<string, string>. I
>>>>> then run two queries, one to select ids that have changed after a certain
>>>>> time:
>>>>>
>>>>> SELECT id FROM eventlog WHERE timestamp>=minTimeuuid($minimumTime)
>>>>>
>>>>> and then a second to select the actual documents themselves
>>>>>
>>>>> SELECT id, data FROM documents WHERE id IN (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7...)
>>>>>
>>>>> However this then explodes on query with the error message:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Cannot restrict PRIMARY KEY part id by IN relation as a collection is
>>>>> selected by the query"
>>>>>
>>>>> Detective work lead me to these lines in
>>>>> org.apache.cassandra.cql3.statementsSelectStatement:
>>>>>
>>>>> // We only support IN for the last name and for
>>>>> compact storage so far
>>>>> // TODO: #3885 allows us to extend to non compact
>>>>> as well, but that remains to be done
>>>>> if (i != stmt.columnRestrictions.length - 1)
>>>>> throw new
>>>>> InvalidRequestException(String.format("PRIMARY KEY part %s cannot be
>>>>> restricted by IN relation", cname));
>>>>> else if (stmt.selectACollection())
>>>>> throw new
>>>>> InvalidRequestException(String.format("Cannot restrict PRIMARY KEY part %s
>>>>> by IN relation as a collection is selected by the query", cname));
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems like #3885 will allow support for the first IF block above,
>>>>> but I don't think it will allow the second, am I correct?
>>>>>
>>>>> Any pointers on how I can work around this would be greatly
>>>>> appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
