cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonathan Ellis <>
Subject Re: Document storage
Date Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:16:39 GMT
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Drew Kutcharian <> wrote:
>> I think this is a much better approach because that gives you the
>> ability to update or retrieve just parts of objects efficiently,
>> rather than making column values just blobs with a bunch of special
>> case logic to introspect them.  Which feels like a big step backwards
>> to me.
> Unless your access pattern involves reading/writing the whole document each time. In
that case you're better off serializing the whole document and storing it in a column as a
byte[] without incurring the overhead of column indexes. Right?

Hmm, not sure what you're thinking of there.

If you mean the "index" that's part of the row header for random
access within a row, then no, serializing to byte[] doesn't save you

If you mean secondary indexes, don't declare any if you don't want any. :)

Just telling C* to store a byte[] *will* be slightly lighter-weight
than giving it named columns, but we're talking negligible compared to
the overhead of actually moving the data on or off disk in the first
place.  Not even close to being worth giving up being able to deal
with your data from standard tools like cqlsh, IMO.

Jonathan Ellis
Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
co-founder of DataStax, the source for professional Cassandra support

View raw message