incubator-cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ed Anuff ...@anuff.com>
Subject Re: Is SuperColumn necessary?
Date Fri, 07 May 2010 16:06:42 GMT
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Mike Malone <mike@simplegeo.com> wrote:

>
> The upshot is, the Cassandra data model would go from being "it's a nested
> dictionary, just kidding no it's not!" to being "it's a nested dictionary,
> for serious." Again, these are all just ideas... but I think this
> simplified
> data model would allow you to express pretty much any query in a graph of
> simple primitives like Predicates, Filters, Aggregations, Transformations,
> etc. The indexes would allow you to cheat when evaluating certain types of
> queries - if you get a SlicePredicate on an indexed "thingy" you don't have
> to enumerate the entire set of "sub-thingies" for example.
>
>
This would be my dream implementation. I'm working an an application that
needs that sort of capability.  SuperColumns lead you to thinking that
should be done in the cassandra tier but then fall short, so my thought was
that I was just going to do everything that was in Cassandra as regular
columnfamilies and columns using composite keys and composite column names
ala the code I shared above, and then implement the n-level hierarchy in the
app tier.  It looks like your suggestion is to take it in the other
direction and make it part of the fundamental data model, which would be
very useful if it could be made to work without big tradeoffs.

Mime
View raw message