in your implementation, is the comment still sorted by TIME?  Will UTF8Type sort <TimeUUID>:author by time?
thanks,
-aj

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Mike Malone <mike@simplegeo.com> wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 4:31 PM, AJ Chen <ajchen@web2express.org> wrote:
supercolumn is good for modeling profile type of data. simple example is blog:
blog { blog {author,  title, ...}
         comments   {time: commenter}  //sort by TimeUUID
}
when retrieving a blog, you get all the comments sorted by time already.
without supercolumn, you would need to concatenate multiple comment times together as you suggested.

requiring user to concatenating data fields together is not only an extra burden on user but also a less clean design.  there will be cases where the list property of a profile data is a long list (say a million items). in such cases, user wants to be able to directly insert/delete an item in that list because it's more efficient.  Retrieving the whole list, updating it, concatenating again, and then putting it back to datastore is awkward and less efficient.

There's nothing you said here that can't be implemented efficiently using columns. You can slice rows and get a subset of Columns. In fact, this example is particularly easy to implement. If you have a Blog with Entries and Comments you'd do:

  <ColumnFamily Name="Blog" CompareWith="UTF8Type" />

  Insert blog post:
    batch_mutate(key=<blog post id>, [{name="~post:author", value=<author>}, {name="~post:title", value=<title>, ...))
  Insert comment:
    batch_mutate(key=<blog post id>, [{name=<TimeUUID> + ":author", ... }]

Then you can get the Post only (slice for ["~", ""]), the comments only (slice for ["", "~"]), or the post _and_ comments (slice for ["", ""]). Inserting a comment does _not_ require a get/concatenate/insert.

Yes, concatenating the names on the client side is hacky, clunky, and inconvenient. That's why we _should_ build an interface that doesn't require the client to concatenate names. But SuperColumns aren't the right way to do it. They add no value. They could be implemented in client libraries, for example, and nobody would know the difference.

To really understand the problem with SuperColumns, though, you need to look at the Cassandra source. Removing SuperColumns would make the code-base much cleaner and tighter, and would probably reduce SLOC by 20%. I think a replacement that assumed nested Columns (or Entries, or Thingies) would be much cleaner. That's what Stu is working on.

Mike

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Mike Malone <mike@simplegeo.com> wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:38 PM, AJ Chen <ajchen@web2express.org> wrote:
Could someone confirm this discussion is not about abandoning supercolumn family? I have found modeling data with supercolumn family is actually an advantage of cassadra compared to relational database. Hope you are going to drop this important concept.  How it's implemented internally is a different matter.

SuperColumns are useful as a convenience mechanism. That's pretty much it. There's _nothing_ (as far as I can tell) that you can do with SuperColumns that you can't do by manually concatenating key names with a separator on the client side and implementing a custom comparator on the server (as ugly as that is).

This discussion is about getting rid of SuperColumns and adding a more generic mechanism that will actually be useful and interesting and will continue to be convenient for the types of use cases for which people use SuperColumns.

If there's a particular use case that you feel you can only implement with SuperColumns, please share! I honestly can't think of any.

Mike


On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Jonathan Shook <jshook@gmail.com> wrote:
Agreed

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Mike Malone <mike@simplegeo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Jonathan Shook <jshook@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have to disagree about the naming of things. The name of something
>> isn't just a literal identifier. It affects the way people think about
>> it. For new users, the whole naming thing has been a persistent
>> barrier.
>
> I'm saying we shouldn't be worried too much about coming up with names and
> analogies until we've decided what it is we're naming.
>
>>
>> As for your suggestions, I'm all for simplifying or generalizing the
>> "how it works" part down to a more generalized set of operations. I'm
>> not sure it's a good idea to require users to think in terms building
>> up a fluffy query structure just to thread it through a needle of an
>> API, even for the simplest of queries. At some point, the level of
>> generic boilerplate takes away from the semantic hand rails that
>> developers like. So I guess I'm suggesting that "how it works" and
>> "how we use it" are not always exactly the same. At least they should
>> both hinge on a common conceptual model, which is where the naming
>> becomes an important anchoring point.
>
> If things are done properly, client libraries could expose simplified query
> interfaces without much effort. Most ORMs these days work by building a
> propositional directed acyclic graph that's serialized to SQL. This would
> work the same way, but it wouldn't be converted into a 4GL.
> Mike
>
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Mike Malone <mike@simplegeo.com> wrote:
>> > Maybe... but honestly, it doesn't affect the architecture or interface
>> > at
>> > all. I'm more interested in thinking about how the system should work
>> > than
>> > what things are called. Naming things are important, but that can happen
>> > later.
>> > Does anyone have any thoughts or comments on the architecture I
>> > suggested
>> > earlier?
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>> > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Schubert Zhang <zsongbo@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Yes, the "column" here is not appropriate.
>> >> Maybe we need not to create new terms, in Google's Bigtable, the term
>> >> "qualifier" is a good one.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 3:04 PM, David Boxenhorn <david@lookin2.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> That would be a good time to get rid of the confusing "column" term,
>> >>> which incorrectly suggests a two-dimensional tabular structure.
>> >>>
>> >>> Suggestions:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. A hypercube (or hypocube, if only two dimensions): replace "key"
>> >>> and
>> >>> "column" with "1st dimension", "2nd dimension", etc.
>> >>>
>> >>> 2. A file system: replace "key" and "column" with "directory" and
>> >>> "subdirectory"
>> >>>
>> >>> 3. A tuple tree: "Column family" replaced by top-level tuple, whose
>> >>> value
>> >>> is the set of keys, whose value is the set of supercolumns of the key,
>> >>> whose
>> >>> value is the set of columns for the supercolumn, etc.
>> >>>
>> >>> 4. Etc.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 2:28 AM, Mike Malone <mike@simplegeo.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Nice, Ed, we're doing something very similar but less generic.
>> >>>> Now replace all of the various methods for querying with a simple
>> >>>> query
>> >>>> interface that takes a Predicate, allow the user to specify (in
>> >>>> storage-conf) which levels of the nested Columns should be indexed,
>> >>>> and
>> >>>> completely remove Comparators and have people subclass Column /
>> >>>> implement
>> >>>> IColumn and we'd really be on to something ;).
>> >>>> Mock storage-conf.xml:
>> >>>>   <Column Name="ThingThatsNowKey" Indexed="True"
>> >>>> ClusterPartitioned="True" Type="UTF8">
>> >>>>     <Column Name="ThingThatsNowColumnFamily" DiskPartitioned="True"
>> >>>> Type="UTF8">
>> >>>>       <Column Name="ThingThatsNowSuperColumnName" Type="Long">
>> >>>>         <Column Name="ThingThatsNowColumnName" Indexed="True"
>> >>>> Type="ASCII">
>> >>>>           <Column Name="ThingThatCantCurrentlyBeRepresented"/>
>> >>>>         </Column>
>> >>>>       </Column>
>> >>>>     </Column>
>> >>>>   </Column>
>> >>>> Thrift:
>> >>>>   struct NamePredicate {
>> >>>>     1: required list<binary> column_names,
>> >>>>   }
>> >>>>   struct SlicePredicate {
>> >>>>     1: required binary start,
>> >>>>     2: required binary end,
>> >>>>   }
>> >>>>   struct CountPredicate {
>> >>>>     1: required struct predicate,
>> >>>>     2: required i32 count=100,
>> >>>>   }
>> >>>>   struct AndPredicate {
>> >>>>     1: required Predicate left,
>> >>>>     2: required Predicate right,
>> >>>>   }
>> >>>>   struct SubColumnsPredicate {
>> >>>>     1: required Predicate columns,
>> >>>>     2: required Predicate subcolumns,
>> >>>>   }
>> >>>>   ... OrPredicate, OtherUsefulPredicates ...
>> >>>>   query(predicate, count, consistency_level) # Count here would be
>> >>>> total
>> >>>> count of leaf values returned, whereas CountPredicate specifies a
>> >>>> column
>> >>>> count for a particular sub-slice.
>> >>>> Not fully baked... but I think this could really simplify stuff and
>> >>>> make
>> >>>> it more flexible. Downside is it may give people enough rope to hang
>> >>>> themselves, but at least the predicate stuff is easily distributable.
>> >>>> I'm thinking I'll play around with implementing some of this stuff
>> >>>> myself if I have any free time in the near future.
>> >>>> Mike
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Jonathan Ellis <jbellis@gmail.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Very interesting, thanks!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Ed Anuff <ed@anuff.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> > Follow-up from last weeks discussion, I've been playing around
>> >>>>> > with a
>> >>>>> > simple
>> >>>>> > column comparator for composite column names that I put up on
>> >>>>> > github.  I'd
>> >>>>> > be interested to hear what people think of this approach.
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > http://github.com/edanuff/CassandraCompositeType
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > Ed
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Ed Anuff <ed@anuff.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> >>
>> >>>>> >> It might make sense to create a CompositeType subclass of
>> >>>>> >> AbstractType for
>> >>>>> >> the purpose of constructing and comparing these types of
>> >>>>> >> "composite"
>> >>>>> >> column
>> >>>>> >> names so that if you could more easily do that sort of thing
>> >>>>> >> rather
>> >>>>> >> than
>> >>>>> >> having to concatenate into one big string.
>> >>>>> >>
>> >>>>> >> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Mike Malone
>> >>>>> >> <mike@simplegeo.com>
>> >>>>> >> wrote:
>> >>>>> >>>
>> >>>>> >>> The only thing SuperColumns appear to buy you (as someone
>> >>>>> >>> pointed
>> >>>>> >>> out to
>> >>>>> >>> me at the Cassandra meetup - I think it was Eric Florenzano) is
>> >>>>> >>> that you can
>> >>>>> >>> use different comparator types for the Super/SubColumns, I
>> >>>>> >>> guess..?
>> >>>>> >>> But you
>> >>>>> >>> should be able to do the same thing by creating your own Column
>> >>>>> >>> comparator.
>> >>>>> >>> I guess my point is that SuperColumns are mostly a convenience
>> >>>>> >>> mechanism, as
>> >>>>> >>> far as I can tell.
>> >>>>> >>> Mike
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> Jonathan Ellis
>> >>>>> Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
>> >>>>> co-founder of Riptano, the source for professional Cassandra support
>> >>>>> http://riptano.com
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>



--
AJ Chen, PhD
Chair, Semantic Web SIG, sdforum.org
http://web2express.org
twitter @web2express
Palo Alto, CA, USA




--
AJ Chen, PhD
Chair, Semantic Web SIG, sdforum.org
http://web2express.org
twitter @web2express
Palo Alto, CA, USA




--
AJ Chen, PhD
Chair, Semantic Web SIG, sdforum.org
http://web2express.org
twitter @web2express
Palo Alto, CA, USA