Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2C5B418885 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 18:21:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 58688 invoked by uid 500); 10 Jul 2015 18:21:29 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 58650 invoked by uid 500); 10 Jul 2015 18:21:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 58639 invoked by uid 99); 10 Jul 2015 18:21:29 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 18:21:29 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id B81E5D3915 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 18:21:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.88 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.88 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd1-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-us-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YYGv6Wx3pxwm for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 18:21:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by mx1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 01C5F20FD3 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 18:21:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by laar3 with SMTP id r3so270576650laa.0 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:21:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=5kmSqb59iCKKBZAwUrk6km04Hrr52/zZbd3DK3vSLnM=; b=opcr1C2pNk9Oob6GZnhrSQOq7w33ta/IEki6WU4OJ6UNGZ8ySCUMq/8pMcJ+9fzFaF yCRFqNWETygTdBR31gI1kXaFGltRapPp9Nl5MEYK48AaH75zdVEo562fB68z2G8jPtPB pGbnZYILwskzOJ5zPRs6McPDV9pPyoo25QH1vtoeapTHeZHPUG6UfOzVvNvyEaMjZdkE 8uxM28YqNbrIROAs0rnR2mlIS0IjQd+EOAktr6pIOTmRGbLNphSI8Nv1kUscrZCzjfW8 m8+l8zA2vDJMxtER5f1j6APOMKKrM+mCsURe5MezzKJxPgfyNCs4yY/1bfZ1YIGmEkZU lwQg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.28.73 with SMTP id z9mr20867736lag.93.1436552480346; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:21:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.169.147 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:21:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.169.147 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:21:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 23:51:19 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Cassandra counters From: Ajay To: user Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158c0264adadd051a897054 --089e0158c0264adadd051a897054 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Any pointers on this?. In 2.1, when updating the counter with UNLOGGED batch using timestamp isn't safe as other column update with consistency level (with timestamp counter update can be idempotent? ). Thanks Ajay On 09-Jul-2015 11:47 am, "Ajay" wrote: > > Hi, > > What is the accuracy improvement of counter in 2.1 over 2.0? > > This below post, it mentioned 2.0.x issues fixed in 2.1 and perfomance improvement. > http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/whats-new-in-cassandra-2-1-a-better-implementation-of-counters > > But how accurate are the counter 2.1.x or any known issues in 2.1 using UNLOGGED batch for counter update with timestamp? > > Thanks > Ajay --089e0158c0264adadd051a897054 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

Any pointers on this?.

In 2.1, when updating the counter with UNLOGGED batch using timestamp isn't safe as other column update with consistency level (with timestamp counter update can be idempotent? ).

Thanks
Ajay

On 09-Jul-2015 11:47 am, "Ajay" <ajay.garga@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> What is the accuracy improvement of counter in 2.1 over 2.0?
>
> This below post, it mentioned 2.0.x issues fixed in 2.1 and perfomance improvement.
> http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/whats-new-in-cassandra-2-1-a-better-implementation-of-counters
>
> But how accurate are the counter 2.1.x or any known issues in 2.1 using UNLOGGED batch for counter update with timestamp?
>
> Thanks
> Ajay

--089e0158c0264adadd051a897054--