cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jan Kantert (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (CASSANDRA-1016) Coprocessors
Date Mon, 24 May 2010 23:56:26 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1016?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12870906#action_12870906
] 

Jan Kantert commented on CASSANDRA-1016:
----------------------------------------

Hi Jeff,

why did you implement this in db.Table? Why didnt you implement this in the service.StorageProxy?

Correct me if i'm wrong: With replication factor N=3 and quorum write the "coprocessor" will
get executed 2 times on every write (once on every node). Where is the advantage in this solution?

In my index implementation I hook into service.StorageProxy mutate and mutateBlocking for
writes. Are there any disadvantages to add it here?

Regards,
Jan

> Coprocessors
> ------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-1016
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1016
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>            Reporter: Ryan King
>         Attachments: CASSANDRA-1016.patch
>
>
> As discussed at the Digg-hosted hackathon.
> First off, this needs a better name, the idea isn't exactly like coprocessors from BigTable
and this entry should be considered a stub for now (Stu and Marius should be able to provide
more details).
> The idea is that for mutation operations, we should all the user to run a routine that
has access to the "old" version of the data and the "new" version, and can take action.
> At a bare minimum, this should be capable of implementing distributed secondary indexes.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


Mime
View raw message