cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Benedict (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-6477) Partitioned indexes
Date Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:33:25 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6477?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13955358#comment-13955358
] 

Benedict commented on CASSANDRA-6477:
-------------------------------------

I may be being dim here, but it seems to me that with this scheme you would need to write
a reverse record of 25, user1->replaced 24, so when you lookup on 25, you can then read
24 and check there were no competing updates? Either that or read the original record, which
sort of defeats the point of denormalisation...

> Partitioned indexes
> -------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-6477
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6477
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: API, Core
>            Reporter: Jonathan Ellis
>             Fix For: 3.0
>
>
> Local indexes are suitable for low-cardinality data, where spreading the index across
the cluster is a Good Thing.  However, for high-cardinality data, local indexes require querying
most nodes in the cluster even if only a handful of rows is returned.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Mime
View raw message