Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cassandra-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 43337 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2010 02:02:39 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Jan 2010 02:02:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 4333 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2010 02:02:39 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cassandra-user-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 4308 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jan 2010 02:02:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cassandra-user-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: cassandra-user@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cassandra-user@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 4299 invoked by uid 99); 22 Jan 2010 02:02:39 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:02:39 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [207.97.245.201] (HELO smtp201.iad.emailsrvr.com) (207.97.245.201) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:02:31 +0000 Received: from relay20.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay20.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 746E41B5A12 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:02:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by relay20.relay.iad.mlsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: eevans-AT-racklabs.com) with ESMTPSA id 408701B5A0D for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:02:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: insert and batch_insert should update? From: Eric Evans To: cassandra-user@incubator.apache.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:02:30 -0600 Message-ID: <1264125750.5296.150.camel@erebus.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 17:56 -0800, Adam Fisk wrote: > I just wanted to make sure that a second insert of the same key and > the same Column/SuperColumn name should completely overwrite any > existing data there, correct? I'm seeing odd behavior there and just > wanted to verify what's expected. Provided that the second write uses a higher timestamp, yes. -- Eric Evans eevans@rackspace.com