@Edward: Perhaps you missed to notice that I need to always retrieve 'all columns' under the supercolumn at any time.. and as per my query requirements if I use composite columns instead of supercolumns then it is impossible to do wildcard queries like the ones asked in this thread's headline but which is much easier to do through the use of supercolumns.
The use case in question was: Only accessing some columns.
Even if that is not the case:
SuperColumns: 1 extra level of nesting
Composite Colunns: Arbitrary levels of nesting
SuperColumns: More overhead (space on disk) then using your own delimiter '_'
SuperColumns: Likely going to be replaced in future c* version behind
the scenes by composite columns anyway
SuperColumns: Usually an afterthought for API developers, (support for
them comes "later")
SuperColumns: Almost always utilized incorrectly by users, users speak
of '10%' performance gains after they switch away from them.
There are some (a small % of cases) where SuperColumns are a better
choice, but this is rare. With composites and concatenating columns
they have no great purpose any more, (bad analogy coming!) like a
mechanical type writer.
On 12/29/11, Philippe <email@example.com> wrote:
> Would you stand by that statement in case all colums inside the super
> column need to be read? Why?
> Le 28 déc. 2011 19:26, "Edward Capriolo" <firstname.lastname@example.org> a écrit :
>> Super columns have the same fundamental problem and perform worse in
>> general. So switching from composites to super columns is NEVER a good
>> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Aditya <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> Since I have around 20 items to query, I guess making 20 queries to
>>> retrieve activities by all followies on all of those 20 columns would too
>>> inefficient, so to take the advantage of more efficient queries, are
>>> supercolumns recommended for this case ? Anyways, in case I use
>>> supercolumns, I need to retrieve the entire supercolumn at any point of
>>> time & I am writing subcolumn(s) to the supercolumn at different times
>>> at once.
>>> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Edward Capriolo
>>>> You need to execute one get slice operation for each item id or if the
>>>> row is not large , you can try one large get slice on the entire row and
>>>> deal with the results client side.
>>>> If you try method 1 When doing slices on composites you can set the
>>>> start inclusive or exclusive values to get only the column you want and
>>>> some extra columns up to slice range size.
>>>> On Tuesday, December 27, 2011, Aditya <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>> > I need to store data of all activities by user's followies in single
>>>> row. I am trying to do that making use of composite column names in a
>>>> single user specific row named 'rowX'.
>>>> > On any activity by a user's followie on an item, a column is stored in
>>>> 'rowX'. The column has a composite type column name made up of
>>>> itemId+userId (which makes it unique col. name) in rowX. (& column value
>>>> contains the activity data related to that item by that followie)
>>>> > Now I want to retrieve activity by all users on a list of items. So I
>>>> need to retrieve all composite columns with composite's first component
>>>> matching the itemId. Is it possible to do such a query to Cassandra ? I
>>>> using Hector.