>
> Would there be a difference (in terms of generated tombstones) if I would
>
> a) issue delete one-by-one like
> DELETE FROM ... WHERE ... uuid = 'a'
> DELETE FROM ... WHERE ... uuid = 'b'
> ...
> DELETE FROM ... WHERE ... uuid = 'z'
>
> or
>
> b) issue delete in a group fashion like
> DELETE FROM ... WHERE ... uuid in ('a', 'b', ... 'z')
>
> ?
>
Both the options will generate an equal number of row tombstones. Probably
the first method is a better option to delete the data with parallel
queries going together.
Regards
Manish
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 12:27 PM Attila Wind <attilaw@swf.technology> wrote:
> Hi C* gurus,
>
> I'm looking for the best strategy to delete records from a "wide" table.
> "wide" means the table stores records which have a UUID-style id element
> of the key - within each partition
>
> So yes, its not the partitioning key... The partitioning key is actually
> kind of a customerId at the moment and actually I'm not even sure this is
> the right model for this table... Given the fact that number of curtomerIds
> <<< number of UUIDs probably not.
> But lets exclude this for a moment maybe and come back to the main
> question of mine!
>
> So the question:
> when I delete records from this table, given the fact I can and I will
> delete in "batch fashion" (imagine kind of a scheduled job which collects -
> let's say - 1000 records) every time I do deletes...
>
> Would there be a difference (in terms of generated tombstones) if I would
>
> a) issue delete one-by-one like
> DELETE FROM ... WHERE ... uuid = 'a'
> DELETE FROM ... WHERE ... uuid = 'b'
> ...
> DELETE FROM ... WHERE ... uuid = 'z'
>
> or
>
> b) issue delete in a group fashion like
> DELETE FROM ... WHERE ... uuid in ('a', 'b', ... 'z')
>
> ?
>
> or is there any other way to effeicently delete which I miss here?
>
> thanks!
> --
> Attila Wind
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/attilaw
> Mobile: +49 176 43556932
>
>
>
