cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jonathan Ellis (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-6477) Global indexes
Date Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:51:02 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6477?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14503171#comment-14503171
] 

Jonathan Ellis commented on CASSANDRA-6477:
-------------------------------------------

bq. calling both 'indexes' would bring on more confusion in the long term

Disagreed.  RDBMS users have lived with hash indexes vs btree indexes vs bitmap indexes with
different abilities for a long time.  (Notably hash indexes have exactly the limitations of
global indexes.)

MV otoh has a completely different feature set that GI doesn't even start to offer.

bq. Also, I personally couldn't care less about the names used by DDB. I'd rather stick closer
to what SQL has, since people coming from SQL world, and not people coming from DynamoDB,
are our target audience.

My point is that whether you come from SQL or NoSQL, MV is the wrong choice.

> Global 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
>            Assignee: Carl Yeksigian
>              Labels: cql
>             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
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message