What if you use an update statement in the second query? -- Jacques-Henri Berthemet
-----Original Message----- From: Tommy Stendahl [mailto:tommy.stend...@ericsson.com] Sent: vendredi 28 août 2015 13:34 To: user@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: TTL question Yes, I understand that but I think this gives a strange behaviour. Having values only on the primary key columns are perfectly valid so why should the primary key be deleted by the TTL on the non-key column. /Tommy On 2015-08-28 13:19, Marcin Pietraszek wrote: > Please look at primary key which you've defined. Second mutation has > exactly the same primary key - it overwrote row that you previously > had. > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Tommy Stendahl > <tommy.stend...@ericsson.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I did a small test using TTL but I didn't get the result I expected. >> >> I did this in sqlsh: >> >> cqlsh> create TABLE foo.bar ( key int, cluster int, col int, PRIMARY KEY >> (key, cluster)) ; >> cqlsh> INSERT INTO foo.bar (key, cluster ) VALUES ( 1,1 ); >> cqlsh> SELECT * FROM foo.bar ; >> >> key | cluster | col >> -----+---------+------ >> 1 | 1 | null >> >> (1 rows) >> cqlsh> INSERT INTO foo.bar (key, cluster, col ) VALUES ( 1,1,1 ) USING TTL >> 10; >> cqlsh> SELECT * FROM foo.bar ; >> >> key | cluster | col >> -----+---------+----- >> 1 | 1 | 1 >> >> (1 rows) >> >> <wait for TTL to expire> >> >> cqlsh> SELECT * FROM foo.bar ; >> >> key | cluster | col >> -----+---------+----- >> >> (0 rows) >> >> >> >> Is this really correct? >> I expected the result from the last select to be: >> >> key | cluster | col >> -----+---------+------ >> 1 | 1 | null >> >> (1 rows) >> >> >> Regards, >> Tommy > >
