cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Svihla <rsvi...@datastax.com>
Subject Re: CQL3 vs Thrift
Date Tue, 23 Dec 2014 05:50:55 GMT
Don't static columns get you what you want?

http://www.datastax.com/documentation/cql/3.1/cql/cql_reference/refStaticCol.html
 On Dec 22, 2014 10:50 PM, "David Broyles" <sj.climber@gmail.com> wrote:

> Although I used Cassandra 1.0.X extensively, I'm new to CQL3.  Pages such
> as http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/ClientOptionsThrift suggest new
> projects should use CQL3.
>
> I'm wondering, however, if there are certain use cases not well covered by
> CQL3.  Consider the standard timeseries example:
>
> CREATE TABLE timeseries (
>    event_type text,
>    insertion_time timestamp,
>    event blob,
>    PRIMARY KEY (event_type, insertion_time)
> ) WITH CLUSTERING ORDER BY (insertion_time DESC);
>
> What happens if I want to store additional information that is shared by
> all events in the given series (but that I don't want to include in the row
> ID): e.g. the event source, a cached count of the number of events logged
> to date, etc.?  I might try updating the definition as follows:
>
> CREATE TABLE timeseries (
>    event_type text,
>       event_source text,
>    total_events int,
>    insertion_time timestamp,
>    event blob,
>    PRIMARY KEY (event_type, event_source, total_events, insertion_time)
> ) WITH CLUSTERING ORDER BY (insertion_time DESC);
>
> Is this not inefficient?  When inserting or querying via CQL3, say in
> batches of up to 1000 events, won't the type/source/count be repeated 1000
> times?  Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding something, or if I
> should be sticking to Thrift for situations like this involving mixed
> static/dynamic data.
>
> Thanks!
>

Mime
View raw message