cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sylvain Lebresne <>
Subject Re: Once again, super columns or composites?
Date Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:28:36 GMT
When people suggest composites instead of super columns, they mean
composite column 'names', not composite column 'values'. None of the
advantages you cite stand in the case of composite column 'names'.


On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Edward Kibardin <> wrote:
> Hi Community,
> I know, I know... every one is claiming Super Columns are not good enough
> and it dangerous to use them now.
> But from my perspective, they have several very good advantages like:
> You are not fixed schema and always can add one more columns to subset of
> your supercolumns
> SuperColumn is loaded as whole if you requesting for at least one sub
> column, but it's the same as loading a whole composite value to get only one
> sub-value
> In supercolumns you can update only one subcolumn without touching other
> subcolumns, in case of composites you're unable to update just a portion of
> composite value.
> May be I do not understand composites correctly, but having very small
> supercolumns (10-15 subcolumns) I still think SuperColumns might be the best
> solution for me...
> In addition, building supercolumns with SSTableWriter is pretty much
> strait-forward for me, while it's not the case with composites...
> Any arguments?

View raw message