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-9231) Support Routing Key as part of Partition Key
Date Fri, 01 May 2015 13:39:07 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9231?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14523197#comment-14523197
] 

Benedict commented on CASSANDRA-9231:
-------------------------------------

Personally I think it is clearer having a "routing key" as a part the primary key than having
a special tokenizer function. It's also syntactically cleaner. Since the user understands
the indirection of clustering versus partition key, it isn't a tall order for them to understand
a routing key, and it fits more neatly into a mental model than the distinct concept of "token"
(which is more an implementation detail, IMO). I agree it is marginally less general, but
it's not mutually exclusive. It is possible for us in future to support function application
to fabricate a "column" inside the routing key declaration only.

> Support Routing Key as part of Partition Key
> --------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-9231
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9231
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Wish
>          Components: Core
>            Reporter: Matthias Broecheler
>             Fix For: 3.x
>
>
> Provide support for sub-dividing the partition key into a routing key and a non-routing
key component. Currently, all columns that make up the partition key of the primary key are
also routing keys, i.e. they determine which nodes store the data. This proposal would give
the data modeler the ability to designate only a subset of the columns that comprise the partition
key to be routing keys. The non-routing key columns of the partition key identify the partition
but are not used to determine where to store the data.
> Consider the following example table definition:
> CREATE TABLE foo (
>   a int,
>   b int,
>   c int,
>   d int,
>   PRIMARY KEY  (([a], b), c ) );
> (a,b) is the partition key, c is the clustering key, and d is just a column. In addition,
the square brackets identify the routing key as column a. This means that only the value of
column a is used to determine the node for data placement (i.e. only the value of column a
is murmur3 hashed to compute the token). In addition, column b is needed to identify the partition
but does not influence the placement.
> This has the benefit that all rows with the same routing key (but potentially different
non-routing key columns of the partition key) are stored on the same node and that knowledge
of such co-locality can be exploited by applications build on top of Cassandra.
> Currently, the only way to achieve co-locality is within a partition. However, this approach
has the limitations that: a) there are theoretical and (more importantly) practical limitations
on the size of a partition and b) rows within a partition are ordered and an index is build
to exploit such ordering. For large partitions that overhead is significant if ordering isn't
needed.
> In other words, routing keys afford a simple means to achieve scalable node-level co-locality
without ordering while clustering keys afford page-level co-locality with ordering. As such,
they address different co-locality needs giving the data modeler the flexibility to choose
what is needed for their application.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message