Return-Path: 
 <user-return-28898-apmail-cassandra-user-archive=cassandra.apache.org@cassandra.apache.org>
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 D4343DEC5
	for <apmail-cassandra-user-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:04:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 13548 invoked by uid 500); 19 Sep 2012 13:04:16 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-user-archive@cassandra.apache.org
Received: (qmail 13461 invoked by uid 500); 19 Sep 2012 13:04:16 -0000
Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:user-help@cassandra.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:user-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>
List-Id: <user.cassandra.apache.org>
Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list user@cassandra.apache.org
Received: (qmail 13436 invoked by uid 99); 19 Sep 2012 13:04:15 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:04:15 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0
	tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from [192.174.58.134] (HELO XEDGEA.nrel.gov) (192.174.58.134)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:04:09 +0000
Received: from XHUBB.nrel.gov (10.20.4.59) by XEDGEA.nrel.gov (192.174.58.134)
 with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.245.1; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 07:03:36
 -0600
Received: from MAILBOX2.nrel.gov ([fe80::19a0:6c19:6421:12f]) by
 XHUBB.nrel.gov ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 07:03:47 -0600
From: "Hiller, Dean" <Dean.Hiller@nrel.gov>
To: "user@cassandra.apache.org" <user@cassandra.apache.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 07:03:45 -0600
Subject: Re: Data Model - Consistency question
Thread-Topic: Data Model - Consistency question
Thread-Index: Ac2WZzRFSiq6MSVnQyCxmK/OwVcqWg==
Message-ID: <CC7F1E40.11525%Dean.Hiller@nrel.gov>
In-Reply-To: <CC7F1983.114F0%Dean.Hiller@nrel.gov>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Thinking a little more on your issue, you can also do that in playroom as
OneToMany is represented with a few columns in the owning table/entity
unlike JPA and RDBMS.

Ie.

Student.java {
 List<Courses> - These course primary keys are saved one per column in the
student's row
}

Course.java {
 List<Students> - These students are saved one per column in the courses
row
}

We sometimes do this with playOrm and don't even bother with the S-SQL it
has which also means you don't need to worry about partitioning in that
case.

Later,
Dean

On 9/19/12 6:46 AM, "Hiller, Dean" <Dean.Hiller@nrel.gov> wrote:

>Yes, this scenario can occur(even with quorum writes/reads as you are
>dealing with different rows) as one write may be complete and the other
>not while someone else is reading from the cluster.  Generally though,
>you can do read repair when you read it in ;).  Ie. See if things are
>inconsistent when reading it and either 1. Wait and read again or 2.
>Figure out a way to display the results correctly based on merging data.
>In general #1 on a lot of systems is not a bad approach when you can't
>merge the data yourself because the conflicts are not happening to
>often(maybe < 1% of the time in a lot of cases)
>
>With playOrm if you have partitions, you can still have that relational
>model you described if you can figure out a partition strategy AND you
>can then query on it with joins and such.
>
>Later,
>Dean
>
>
>From: Roshni Rajagopal
><roshni_rajagopal@hotmail.com<mailto:roshni_rajagopal@hotmail.com>>
>Reply-To: "user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>"
><user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>>
>Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 6:16 AM
>To: "user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>"
><user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>>
>Subject: Data Model - Consistency question
>
>Hi Folks,
>
>In the relational world, if I needed to model students, courses
>relationship, I may have done
>a students -master table
>a course - master table
>a bridge table students-course which gives me the ids to students and the
>courses they are taking. This can answer both 'which students take course
>A', as well as 'which courses are taken by student B'
>
>In the cassandra world, I may design it like this
>a static student column family
>a static course column family
>a student-course column family with student id as key and dynamic list of
>course - ids to answer 'which courses are taken by student B'
>a course-student column family with course id as key and dynamic list of
>student ids  'which students take course A'
>
>A screen which displays some student entity details as well as all the
>courses she is taking will need to refer to 2 column families
>
>Suppose an application inserts a new row in student column family, and a
>new row in student-course column family, as transactions or consistency
>across column families is not guaranteed, there is a chance that the
>client receives information that a student is attending a course from
>student-course column family, but does not exist in the student column
>family.
>
>If we use Strong consistency from the  reads + writes combination - will
>this scenario not occur ?
>And if we dont, can this scenario occur?
>
>Regards,
>Roshni
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Regards,
>Roshni