Mailing-List: contact commits-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Message-ID: <10249381.162831287154172644.JavaMail.jira@thor>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:49:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Stu Hood (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: commits@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (CASSANDRA-1600) Merge get_indexed_slices with
 get_range_slices
In-Reply-To: <28166885.69681286764930687.JavaMail.jira@thor>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1600?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12921390#action_12921390 ] 

Stu Hood commented on CASSANDRA-1600:
-------------------------------------

> we already have this problem with the existing get_range_slices and excessively large count values.
In the case, the user is explicitly saying, give me a lot of stuff. The fix (in production) would be a one line code change, not the emergency addition of an index.

> it turns out that allowing people to do more powerful/efficient things is the right choice even when it is potentially dangerous
I disagree. http://jsomers.net/blog/it-turns-out

If we're talking about the specific case of adhoc analytics queries, then we should discuss them independently, because they really are a whole different beast. For instance, if the idea here is that you would perform filtering in Cassandra rather than in the Hadoop process, you are not saving anything but ser/de time, since the recommended way to deploy Hadoop is directly on localhost.

> Merge get_indexed_slices with get_range_slices
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-1600
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1600
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: API
>            Reporter: Stu Hood
>             Fix For: 0.7.0
>
>         Attachments: 0001-Add-optional-IndexClause-to-KeyRange-and-serialize-w.patch, 0002-Drop-the-IndexClause.count-parameter.patch, 0003-Execute-RangeSliceCommands-using-scan-when-an-IndexC.patch, 0004-Remove-get_indexed_slices-method.patch, 0005-Update-system-tests-to-use-get_range_slices.patch, 0006-Remove-start_key-from-IndexClause-for-the-start_key-.patch, 0007-Respect-end_key-for-filtered-queries.patch
>
>
> From a comment on 1157:
> {quote}
> IndexClause only has a start key for get_indexed_slices, but it would seem that the reasoning behind using 'KeyRange' for get_range_slices applies there as well, since if you know the range you care about in the primary index, you don't want to continue scanning until you exhaust 'count' (or the cluster).
> Since it would appear that get_indexed_slices would benefit from a KeyRange, why not smash get_(range|indexed)_slices together, and make IndexClause an optional field on KeyRange?
> {quote}

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