Thanks Tyler, for identifying that this can be fixed now. Here is the JIRA ticket : CASSANDRA-12654 :
If this is just removing the now obsolete check, then I hope this makes to 3.10 release. Regards, Samba On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 1:33 AM, Tyler Hobbs <ty...@datastax.com> wrote: > That ticket was just to improve the error message. From the comments on > the ticket: > > "Unfortunately, handling collections is slightly harder than what > CASSANDRA-5230 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-5230> > aimed for, because we can't do a name query. So this will have to wait for > CASSANDRA-4762 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-4762>. In > the meantime, we should obviously not throw an assertion error so attaching > a patch to improve validation." > > However, it seems like this would be possible to support in Cassandra > 3.x. We probably just need to remove the check and verify that it actually > works. Can you open a new JIRA ticket for this? > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Samba <saas...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> any update on this issue? >> >> the quoted JIRA issue (CASSANDRA-5376) is resolved as fixed in 1.2.4 but >> it is still not possible (even in 3.7) to use IN operator in queries that >> fetch collection columns. >> >> is the fix only to report better error message that this is not possible >> or was it fixed then but the issue resurfaced in regression? >> >> could you please confirm one way or the other? >> >> Thanks and Regards, >> Samba >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Samba <saas...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> "CASSANDRA-5376: CQL IN clause on last key not working when schema >>> includes set,list or map" >>> >>> is marked resolved in 1.2.4 but i still see the issue (not an Assertion >>> Error, but an query validation message) >>> >>> was the issue resolved only to report proper error message or was it >>> fixed to support retrieving collections when query contains IN clause of >>> partition/cluster (last) columns? >>> >>> If it was fixed properly to support retrieving collections with IN >>> clause, then is it a bug in 3.7 release that i get the same message? >>> >>> Could you please explain, if it not fixed as intended, if there are >>> plans to support this in future? >>> >>> Thanks & Regards, >>> Samba >>> >> >> > > > -- > Tyler Hobbs > DataStax <http://datastax.com/> >