incubator-cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: bug report - CQL3 grammar should ignore VARCHAR column length in CREATE statements
Date Tue, 05 Mar 2013 21:08:56 GMT
http://www.edwardcapriolo.com/roller/edwardcapriolo/entry/schema_vs_schema_less

Does your the tool handle the fact that foreign keys do not work? Or for
that matter, how are your dealing with the fact that a "primary key" in
cassandra is nothing like a "primary key" in a RDBMS?

Generally under the impression that CRUD tools that auto-generate CQL
schema's can give someone the rope to hang themselves.

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Andrew Prendergast <ap@andrewprendergast.com
> wrote:

> Hi Tristan,
>
> I've spent the last couple weekends testing the CRUD DML stuff and its very
> close to meeting that objective (although NULL handling needs some tuning).
>
> The main hiccups are in the JDBC driver which I have been working through
> with Rick - once he accepts my patches it'll be pretty solid in terms of
> cross-platform compatibility.
>
> On the DDL, I personally have a need for similar compatibility. One app I'm
> working on  programmatically creates the schema for a rather big ETL
> environment. It includes a very nice abstraction that creates databases and
> tables to accommodate tuples as they pass through the pipeline and behaves
> the same regardless of which DBMS is being used as the storage engine.
>
> This is possible because it turns out there is a subset of DDL that is
> common to all of the DBMS platforms and it would be very useful to see that
> in Cassandra.
>
> ap
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Tristan Tarrant
> <tristan.tarrant@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Sylvain Lebresne <sylvain@datastax.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > > This is just one of a few small adjustments that can be made to the
> > > grammar
> > > > to make everyone's life easier while still maintaining the spirit of
> > > NOSQL.
> > >
> > > To be clear, I am *not* necessarily against making CQL3 closer to the
> > > ANSI-SQL
> > > as a convenience. But only if that doesn't compromise the language
> > > "integrity"
> > > and is justified. Adding a syntax with a well known semantic but
> without
> > >
> >
> > To me database DDL (such as the CREATE statement we are talking about) is
> > always going to be handled in a custom fashion by applications.
> > While ANSI SQL compatibility for CRUD operations is a great objective, I
> > don't think it really matters for DDL.
> >
> > Tristan
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message