cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jon Haddad (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Issue Comment Deleted] (CASSANDRA-6477) Materialized Views (was: Global Indexes)
Date Fri, 17 Jul 2015 19:18:21 GMT


Jon Haddad updated CASSANDRA-6477:
    Comment: was deleted

(was: It seems odd to me that as a user I'd ask for a certain consistency level and I would
get a successful response that was essentially footnoted with "not really".  

Perhaps I was using batching incorrectly, but in my experience I found it useful to keep multiple
views of my data up to date, and I was doing so at QUORUM because I needed to be strongly
consistent.  Not having it even as an option kills a lot of use cases.

This next part is up for debate, but is based on the conversations and questions I've had
with people at Cassandra Day. This feature is a big deal for people coming from the RDBMS
world - probably more so than existing users.  There's usually quite a bit of discussion around
this topic.  At my last talk, I brought up materialized views and people bit onto it like
a dog with a bone.  I feel like mandatory async is a strange caveat that would be unexpected
for these people.)

> 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