Andrew,
I was thinking about setting up an accessor with that query and a bound
variable ? which binds to the instance being added, e.g:
@Query("UPDATE my_table SET labels = labels + ? WHERE id = ?")
void addLabel(Label label, String id);
Will that work?
On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Andrew Tolbert <andrew.tolb...@datastax.com
> wrote:
> You can do it in a SimpleStatement assuming you provide the CQL exactly as
> you provided, but in a PreparedStatement it will not work because cql
> prohibits provide bind values in collection literals. For it to work you
> could provide a List of UDT values in a bound prepared statement, i.e.:
>
> UserType udtType = cluster.getMetadata().
> getKeyspace("k").getUserType("u");
> UDTValue value = udtType.newValue();
> value.setString(0, "data");
>
> PreparedStatement p0 = session.prepare("UPDATE my_table SET labels =
> labels + ? where id = ?");
> BoundStatement b0 = p0.bind(*Lists.newArrayList(value)*, 0);
> session.execute(b0);
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Ali Akhtar <ali.rac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Looks like the trick was to use [] around the udt value literal.
>>
>> Any way to do this using the java driver?
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Ali Akhtar <ali.rac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Changing the double quotes to single quotes gives:
>>>
>>> UPDATE my_table SET labels = labels + {id: 'foo'} where id = '';
>>>
>>> InvalidRequest: Error from server: code=2200 [Invalid query]
>>> message="Invalid user type literal for labels of type list<frozen<label>>"
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Ali Akhtar <ali.rac...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The question is about appending to a set of frozen<udt> and how to do
>>>> that while avoiding the race condition.
>>>>
>>>> If I run:
>>>>
>>>> UPDATE my_table SET labels = labels + {id: "foo"} where id = 'xx';
>>>>
>>>> I get:
>>>>
>>>> SyntaxException: line 1:57 no viable alternative at input '}' (...=
>>>> labels + {id: ["fo]o"}...)
>>>>
>>>> Here labels is set<frozen<label>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Vladimir Yudovin <vla...@winguzone.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If I used consistency = ALL both when getting the record, and when
>>>>> saving the record, will that avoid the race condition?
>>>>> If I use consistency level = all, will that cause it to end up with
>>>>> [1,2]?
>>>>> No. Even if you have only one host it's possible that two threads
>>>>> first both read data and than overwrite existing value one by one.
>>>>>
>>>>> The list is actually of a list<frozen<my_udt>> and not a text (I used
>>>>> text for simplification, apologies).
>>>>> In that case, will updates still merge the list values instead of
>>>>> overwriting them?
>>>>> Do you mean UPDATE cql operation? Yes, it adds new values to list,
>>>>> allowing duplicates.
>>>>>
>>>>> When setting a new value to a list, C* will do a read-delete-write
>>>>> internally e.g. read the current list, remove all its value (by a range
>>>>> tombstone) and then write the new list.
>>>>> As I mentioned duplicates are allowed in LIST, and as DOC says:
>>>>>
>>>>> These update operations are implemented internally without any
>>>>> read-before-write. Appending and prepending a new element to the list
>>>>> writes only the new element.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only when using index
>>>>>
>>>>> When you add an element at a particular position, Cassandra reads the
>>>>> entire list, and then writes only the updated element. Consequently,
>>>>> adding
>>>>> an element at a particular position results in greater latency than
>>>>> appending or prefixing an element to a list.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards, Vladimir Yudovin,
>>>>>
>>>>> *Winguzone <https://winguzone.com?from=list> - Hosted Cloud
>>>>> CassandraLaunch your cluster in minutes.*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---- On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 07:57:36 -0500*Ali Akhtar
>>>>> <ali.rac...@gmail.com <ali.rac...@gmail.com>>* wrote ----
>>>>>
>>>>> The labels collection is of the type set<frozen<label>> , where label
>>>>> is a udt containing: id, name, description , all text fields.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Ali Akhtar <ali.rac...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem isn't just the update / insert though, right? Don't frozen
>>>>> entities get overwritten completely? So if I had [1] [2] being written as
>>>>> updates, won't each update overwrite the set completely, so i'll end up
>>>>> with either one of them instead of [1,2]?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 5:50 PM, DuyHai Doan <doanduy...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you should use my Achilles mapper, which does generates UPDATE
>>>>> statements on collections and not only INSERT
>>>>> Le 12 nov. 2016 13:08, "Ali Akhtar" <ali.rac...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> I am using the Java Cassandra mapper for all of these cases, so my
>>>>> code looks like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> Item myItem = myaccessor.get( itemId );
>>>>> Mapper<Item> mapper = mappingManager.create( Item.class );
>>>>>
>>>>> myItem.labels.add( newLabel );
>>>>> mapper.save( myItem );
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Ali Akhtar <ali.rac...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks DuyHai, I will switch to using a set.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I'm still not sure how to resolve the original question.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Original labels = []
>>>>> - Request 1 arrives with label = 1, and request 2 arrives with label =
>>>>> 2
>>>>> - Updates are sent to c* with labels = [1] and labels = [2]
>>>>> simultaneously.
>>>>>
>>>>> What will happen in the above case? Will it cause the labels to end up
>>>>> as [1,2] (what I want) or either [1] or [2]?
>>>>>
>>>>> If I use consistency level = all, will that cause it to end up with
>>>>> [1,2]?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 4:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <doanduy...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't use list, use set instead. If you need ordering of insertion,
>>>>> use a map<timeuuid,text> where timeuuid is generated by the client to
>>>>> guarantee insertion order
>>>>>
>>>>> When setting a new value to a list, C* will do a read-delete-write
>>>>> internally e.g. read the current list, remove all its value (by a range
>>>>> tombstone) and then write the new list. Please note that prepend & append
>>>>> operations on list do not require this read-delete-write and thus performs
>>>>> slightly better
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Ali Akhtar <ali.rac...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a table where each record contains a list<string> of labels.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have an endpoint which responds to new labels being added to a
>>>>> record by the user.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider the following scenario:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Record X, labels = []
>>>>> - User selects 2 labels, clicks a button, and 2 http requests are
>>>>> generated.
>>>>> - The server receives request for Label 1 and Label 2 at the same time.
>>>>> - Both requests see the labels as empty, add 1 label to the
>>>>> collection, and send it.
>>>>> - Record state as label 1 request sees it: [1], as label 2 sees it: [2]
>>>>>
>>>>> How will the above conflict be resolved? What can I do so I end up
>>>>> with [1, 2] instead of either [1] or [2] after both requests have been
>>>>> processed?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
