Similarly, should we send multiple SELECT requests or a single one with a
SELECT...IN ?
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 11:27 AM, Sotirios Delimanolis
<sotodel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Will this "eventually they will all go through" behavior apply to the IN? How
is this query written to the commitlog?
Do you mean prepare a query likeDELETE FROM MastersOfTheUniverse WHERE
mastersID = ?;and execute it asynchronously 3000 times or add 3000 of these
DELETE (bound) prepared statements to a BATCH statement executed asynchronously?
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 9:51 AM, Jonathan Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com>
wrote:
Batches don't work like that. It's possible for some to succeed, and later,
the rest will. Atomic is the incorrect word to use, it's more like "eventually
they will all go through".
Do not use IN(), use a whole bunch of prepared statements asynchronously.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 9:26 AM Sotirios Delimanolis <sotodel...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Hi,
When executing a DELETE statement with an IN clause, where the list contains
partition keys, what is the underlying behaviour with regards to atomicity?
DELETE FROM MastersOfTheUniverse WHERE mastersID IN ('Man-At-Arms', 'Teela');
Is it going to act like an atomic batch where if one fails, all fail? If that
is the case, is there any reason to use a BATCH statement with multiple single
DELETE statement or should we always prefer a DELETE with an IN clause?
For example, given 3000 keys for rows I want to delete, should I issue a single
DELETE query and provide all the keys in the IN argument or should I add 3000
DELETE queries to a BATCH statement?
Thank you,Sotirios
