Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of infalco@gmail.com designates
 209.85.212.172 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Edward Kibardin <infalco@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:52:02 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CADsDW8zBkzHoqGHyzp-W2wNHF4z9mmRWue-FJ8JA-ZPZ4v-bQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Once again, super columns or composites?
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6dbdf496972d004caa1d6d1

--0016e6dbdf496972d004caa1d6d1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi Community,

I know, I know... every one is claiming Super Columns are not good enough
and it dangerous to use them now.
But from my perspective, they have several very good advantages like:

   1. You are not fixed schema and always can add one more columns to
   subset of your supercolumns
   2. SuperColumn is loaded as whole if you requesting for at least one sub
   column, but it's the same as loading a whole composite value to get only
   one sub-value
   3. In supercolumns you can update only one subcolumn without touching
   other subcolumns, in case of composites you're unable to update just a
   portion of composite value.

May be I do not understand composites correctly, but having very small
supercolumns (10-15 subcolumns) I still think SuperColumns might be the
best solution for me...
In addition, building supercolumns with SSTableWriter is pretty
much strait-forward for me, while it's not the case with composites...

Any arguments?

--0016e6dbdf496972d004caa1d6d1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Community,<div><br></div><div>I know, I know... every one is claiming Su=
per Columns are not good enough and it dangerous to use them now.</div><div=
>But from my perspective, they have several very good advantages like:</div=
>

<div><ol><li>You are not fixed schema and always can add one more columns t=
o subset of your supercolumns</li><li>SuperColumn is loaded as whole if you=
 requesting for at least one sub column, but it&#39;s the same as loading a=
 whole composite value to get only one sub-value</li>

<li>In supercolumns you can update only one subcolumn without touching othe=
r subcolumns, in case of composites you&#39;re unable to update just a port=
ion of composite value.</li></ol><div>May be I do not understand composites=
 correctly, but having very small supercolumns (10-15 subcolumns) I still t=
hink SuperColumns might be the best solution for me...</div>

</div><div>In addition, building=A0supercolumns with SSTableWriter is prett=
y much=A0strait-forward=A0for me, while it&#39;s not the case with composit=
es...</div><div><br></div><div>Any arguments?</div><div><br></div><div><br>=
</div>


--0016e6dbdf496972d004caa1d6d1--