Thank you Rahul, but is it a good practice to use a large range here? Or
would it be better to create partitions with more than 1 row (by using a
clustering key)?
>From a data query point of view I will be accessing the rows by a UID one
at a time.

## Advertising

F Javier Pareja
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Rahul Singh <rahul.xavier.si...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The range is 2*2^63
>
> --
> Rahul Singh
> rahul.si...@anant.us
>
> Anant Corporation
>
> On Mar 7, 2018, 6:06 AM -0500, Javier Pareja <pareja.jav...@gmail.com>,
> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I have been trying to find an answer to the following but I have had no
> luck so far:
> Is there any limit to the number of partitions that a table can have?
> Let's say a table has a partition key an no clustering key, is there a
> recommended limit on the number of values that this partition key can have?
> Is it recommended to have a clustering key to reduce this number by storing
> several rows in each partition instead of one row per partition.
>
> Regards,
>
> F Javier Pareja
>
>