Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C10889CF0 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 21:44:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 71798 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jun 2012 21:44:00 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 71773 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jun 2012 21:44:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 71761 invoked by uid 99); 7 Jun 2012 21:44:00 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 21:44:00 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.210.44] (HELO mail-pz0-f44.google.com) (209.85.210.44) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 21:43:55 +0000 Received: by dacx6 with SMTP id x6so1457152dac.31 for ; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 14:43:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=anconafamily.com; s=google; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=SxBq1JUJ+hpIbpnWzlfpjcZBTyk6OlrLlxrOnZ7sWgU=; b=gTGER+f95S7Ruxu5+m6xoqQSuVK0Ga+JSHR2ohBErmo5A1FL+olcHrmu9uWqoVo1qx wcVQafuuHA0FFPe/A0IPOXb26xik1PSnnICQ7UklBW5kmf4kQbIkKF+SxkU2h7fvaHD2 mMO1tEbuZxP7k2iU9Hz88f38VrJvRAXr8q6dQ= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=SxBq1JUJ+hpIbpnWzlfpjcZBTyk6OlrLlxrOnZ7sWgU=; b=AaZp6sKJ57vf0D1eWISimF+LYYhP6FRKNZJc51NGxxDosNsVogfoSvy868LE4hGD+n mwM0ZropHm8A4jIwJH0zkLIUboi11iLNDbaZeg2POV+rDN0ExQ4sAg3pYKRF/7U150BC ZH3tEy93vEQI7P2LI2jLR5dc3xW9vpsWovtQOsW6Hj6iXyuYMD11NXNyZC6QuhBSeT2y wrezYWzZF1sr+nTZs/LhTgUZYJcxA3t6Idnp5IzkmkQTDJ6Sa1oy/Eq4Tk2H59OAuNXu zGzTvLifwzxrBfZOCTSGY9H0TrT3yZXd+AgFqoZukVrSXCLpFVd3j4YvrVW7e2IcymNq qfKA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.227.197 with SMTP id sc5mr13289691pbc.58.1339105413230; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 14:43:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.6.102 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 14:43:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [208.54.86.178] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 17:43:33 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Secondary Indexes, Quorum and Cluster Availability From: Jim Ancona To: user@cassandra.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b16354578ee3d04c1e8c669 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmYEV4Ss7l+icTwdp1727hoEuMJdd5fzYvcF2ZOY0L/f2ekYZR3Zj32S8Nz7hxqKyiVIbKQ X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --047d7b16354578ee3d04c1e8c669 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:41 AM, aaron morton wrote: > Sounds good. Do you want to make the change ? > Done. > > Thanks for taking the time. > Thanks for giving the answer! Jim > > ----------------- > Aaron Morton > Freelance Developer > @aaronmorton > http://www.thelastpickle.com > > On 7/06/2012, at 7:54 AM, Jim Ancona wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Jim Ancona wrote: > >> It might be a good idea for the documentation to reflect the tradeoffs >> more clearly. > > > Here's a proposed addition to the Secondary Index FAQ at > http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/SecondaryIndexes > > Q: How does choice of Consistency Level affect cluster availability when > using secondary indexes? > A: Because secondary indexes are distributed, you must have CL level nodes > available for *all* token ranges in the cluster in order to complete a > query. For example, with RF = 3, when two out of three consecutive nodes in > the ring are unavailable, *all* secondary index queries at CL = QUORUM > will fail, however secondary index queries at CL = ONE will succeed. This > is true regardless of cluster size. > > Comments? > > Jim > > > --047d7b16354578ee3d04c1e8c669 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:41 AM, aaron morton= <aaron@thelastpickle.com> wrote:
Sounds good. Do you want to make the ch= ange ?=C2=A0
Done.

Thanks for taking t= he time.=C2=A0
Thanks for giving the answer! <= br>
Jim


<= br>
<= div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">
-----------------
Aaron Morton
Freelance Deve= loper
@aaronmorton

On 7/06/2012, at 7:54 AM, Jim An= cona wrote:

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:30 = PM, Jim Ancona <jim@anconafamily.com> wrote:
It might be a good idea for the documentation to reflect the tradeoffs more= clearly.

Here's a proposed addition to the Secondary I= ndex FAQ at http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/SecondaryIndexes

Q: How does choice of Consistency Level= affect cluster availability when using secondary indexes?
A: Because se= condary indexes are distributed, you must have CL level nodes available for= all token ranges in the cluster in order to complete a query. For e= xample, with RF =3D 3, when two out of three consecutive nodes in the ring = are unavailable, all secondary index queries at CL =3D QUORUM will f= ail, however secondary index queries at CL =3D ONE will succeed. This is tr= ue regardless of cluster size.

Comments?

Jim


--047d7b16354578ee3d04c1e8c669--