Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of eevans@acunu.com designates
 209.85.160.172 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPmap1duq9AS0xMRDvphQ7FvX4BeXW98SQFfgGu-p3JjEW3XLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAPmap1duq9AS0xMRDvphQ7FvX4BeXW98SQFfgGu-p3JjEW3XLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 19:41:45 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAL35Oi17Jb2nKuHyu1HKxC=vZV5CB0Npjgmrqe5uRbT9+_XTtw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Question regarding CQL
From: Eric Evans <eevans@acunu.com>
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Santiago Basulto
<santiago.basulto@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been taking a look at Cassandra code for a while (since last
> year) and using and trying it "in home". Nowdays i've started to take
> a look at the "new stuff", more precisely to CQL. I think it's great,
> I mean, just taking a look at Eric presentation
> (http://www.datastax.com/2011/07/video-eric-evans-on-cql) makes you
> love just it.
>
> But, now i'm wondering: isn't it a one-way path? The kind you never
> returns? I mean, if the Cassandra starts to grow in complexity, and
> the datamodel extends a little bit, and everything start to grow, and
> things like "query parsing", "query execution planning", "query
> optimization" start to arise, would't it go against the first "simple,
> fast" philosophy of the beginning?

I know it's bad form to answer a question with a question, but how is
this any different than any other type of query interface?  Or to put
it another way, what is it about a query language that you find
inherently complex?

--=20
Eric Evans
Acunu |=A0http://www.acunu.com=A0| @acunu