You can implement anything you want :) Contributing back is another story. So if you can't predict the value of a single column, see my other recommendation.
J-D On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:04 PM, sagar naik <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks J-D > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> For checkAndPut, is there a column that you know will exist that >> you're not updating that you know for sure which value it will have? >> Worst case you could use a dummy column just for that. >> >> Column data is not predictable > Can I implement this functionality on the lines of checkAndPut , calling it > updateOnlyIfRowExists () , > > >> For increments, I can't think of a way to do it without either >> implementing a checkAndIncrement or doing 2 roundtrips. >> >> > > >> J-D >> > > > -Sagar > >> >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 7:00 PM, sagar naik <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hello Friends, >> > >> > We have a case in our application where we need to update values or >> > increment values only if the row is present. >> > Primary reason being, row key received may be corrupt or invalid. We dont >> > want to create dangling rows. >> > >> > Obviously, >> > - get row key and check if the row exists, then update is a costly call. >> 2 >> > round trips for each update >> > - checkAndPut -> one needs to knw row,family,qualifer and value to >> > accomplish this. I initially thought passing just rowkey and value=rowKey >> > will work. But, u need all the arguments. >> > - Is there any hack u can recommend to work around this problem. >> > - Also, for increment, how do I implement it. >> > >> > In short, any update/increment should happen only if row key is present. >> So >> > this will help me achieve some data integrity >> > >> > >> > Thanks >> > The community is super helpful >> > So Thanks again :) >> > >> > -Sagar >> > >> >
