cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jesse McConnell <jesse.mcconn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Using column plus value or only column?
Date Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:39:53 GMT
infinite is a bit of a bold claim....

by my understanding you are bound by the memory of the jvm as all of
the content of a key/row currently needs to fit in memory for
compaction, which includes columns and supercolumns for given key/row.

if you are going to run into those scenarios then some sort of
sharding on the keys is required, afaict

cheers,
jesse

--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com



On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 16:30, Nathan McCall <nate@vervewireless.com> wrote:
> Erik,
> Sure, you could and depending on the workload, that might be quite
> efficient for small pieces of data. However, this also sounds like
> something that might be better addressed with the addition of a
> SuperColumn on "Sorts" and getting rid of "Data" altogether:
>
> Sorts : {
>   sort_row_1 : {
>        sortKey1 : { col1:val1, col2:val2 },
>        sortKey2 : { col1:val3, col2:val4 }
>   }
> }
>
> You can have an infinite number of SuperColumns for a key, but make
> sure you understand get_slice vs. get_range_slice before you commit to
> a design. Hopefully I understood your example correctly, if not, do
> you have anything more concrete?
>
> Cheers,
> -Nate
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Erik Holstad <erikholstad@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks Nate for the example.
>>
>> I was thinking more a long the lines of something like:
>>
>> If you have a family
>>
>> Data : {
>>   row1 : {
>>     col1:val1,
>>   row2 : {
>>     col1:val2,
>>     ...
>>   }
>> }
>>
>>
>> Using
>> Sorts : {
>>   sort_row : {
>>     sortKey1_datarow1: [],
>>     sortKey2_datarow2: []
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> Instead of
>> Sorts : {
>>   sort_row : {
>>     sortKey1: datarow1,
>>     sortKey2: datarow2
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> If that makes any sense?
>>
>> --
>> Regards Erik
>>
>

Mime
View raw message