Am 10.09.2014 um 22:25 schrieb Michael Segel:
> Ok, but here’s the thing… you extrapolate the design out… each column
> with a subordinate record will get its own CF.
I disagree. Not by the proposed design. You could do it with one CF.
> Simple examples can go
> very bad when you move to real life.
I agree.
> Again you need to look at hierarchical databases and not think in
> terms of relational. To give you a really good example… look at a
> point of sale system in Pick/Revelation/U2 …
>
> You are great at finding a specific customer’s order and what they
> ordered. You suck at telling me how many customers ordered that
> widget in red. during the past month’s promotion. (You’ll need to
> do a map/reduce for that. )
correct, that's the downside of the suggestion. If you want to query
something like that ("give all 'toplevel columns' that that have this
and that!"), you would have to make a map reduce. Or you need something
like an index. But that's a question only the thread owner can answer
because we don't know what he's trying to accomplish. If there is a
chance that he want to query something like that, my suggestion would be
a bad plan.
I think the thread owner has now 3 ideas how to do what he was asking
for, with up and downsides. Now he has to decide what's the best plan
for the future.
Best wishes,
Wilm
