As someone else pointed out it’s the same number of tombstones. Doing distinct
queries gives you a bit more flexibility to retry it one fails, but multiple in
one command avoids some contention on the memtable partition objects.
If you’re happen to be using type1 uuids (timeuuid) AND you’re deleting
contiguous ranges, you could do a DELETE ... WHERE uuid>=? AND uuid <= ?
This would trade lots of tombstones for a single range tombstones, but may not
match your model.
> On Sep 3, 2020, at 11:57 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
>
>
