cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sylvain Lebresne (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-6477) Materialized Views (was: Global Indexes)
Date Tue, 14 Jul 2015 16:50:08 GMT


Sylvain Lebresne commented on CASSANDRA-6477:

Changing this would also imply that
INSERT INTO (k,t) VALUES (0, 0);
would create a row in the view as well for (0, null, 0).
Absolutely. And to be clear, all I'm saying is, we should make sure we're all in agreement
and comfortable with the semantic we implement (and we should be clear on what that semantic
is exactly). To have every row in the base table having a counterpart in the MV is something
I would have expected.  Are we sure we are fine with giving up that property? Or to put it
another way, if we do give up that property, I'd like to make sure we understand why we are
doing so, and I'm not all that clear on that. Is everyone except me convinced that a {{null}}
for a column that is part of the MV primary key should mean the row is not in the MV?

> Materialized Views (was: Global Indexes)
> ----------------------------------------
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-6477
>                 URL:
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: API, Core
>            Reporter: Jonathan Ellis
>            Assignee: Carl Yeksigian
>              Labels: cql
>             Fix For: 3.0 beta 1
>         Attachments:, users.yaml
> 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

View raw message