Main problem that this "sweet spot" is
very narrow. We can't have lots of CF, we can't have long rows and
we end up with enormous amount of huge composite row keys and
stored metadata about that keys (keep in mind overhead on such
scheme, but looks like that nobody really cares about it anymore).
And this approach is bad for running Hadoop jobs on it (for now
i'm pointing at this as main problem for me right now) and for
creating secondary indices (lots of rows - high cardinality,
right?), also some 'per-CF option' could become a limitation
factor. And bad thing about it - this just doesn't look
extendable, you just must end up with 'not-so-many' big CFs -
that's a dead end. Maybe it wouldn't look that bad if you try not
to associate CF with any real entity and call them 'Random stuff
I just hope that i'm wrong and there's some good compromise
between three ways of storing data - long rows, many
'very-composite' rows and partitioning by CF. Which way is
preferable to run complicated analytics queries on top of it in
fair amount of time? How people handle this?
W/ best regards,
On 10.10.2012 2:15, Ben Hood wrote:
I'm not a Cassandra dev, so take what I say with a lot of salt, but
AFAICT, there is a certain amount of overhead in maintaining a CF, so
when you have large numbers of CFs, this adds up. From a layperson's
perspective, this observation sounds reasonable, since zero-cost CFs
would be tantamount to being able to implement secondary indexes by
just adding CFs. So instead of paying the for the overhead (or
ineffectiveness of high-cardinaility secondary indexes, which ever way
you want to look at it), you are expecting a free lunch by just
scaling out in terms on new CFs. I would imagine that under the
covers, the layout of Cassandra has a sweet spot of a smallish number
of CFs (i.e. 10s), but these can practically have as many rows as you
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Vanger <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
So what solution should be for cassandra architecture when we need to make
Hadoop M\R jobs and not be restricted by number of CF?
What we have now is fair amount of CFs (> 2K) and this number is slowly
growing so we already planing to merge partitioned CFs. But our next goal is
to run hadoop tasks on those CFs. All we have is plain Hector and custom ORM
on top of it. As far as i understand VirtualKeyspace doesn't help in our
Also i dont understand why not implement support for many CF ( or build-in
partitioning ) on cassandra side. Anybody can explain why this can or cannot
be done in cassandra?
Just in case:
We're using cassandra 1.0.11 on 30 nodes (planning upgrade on 1.1.* soon).
W/ best regards,
On 04.10.2012 0:10, Hiller, Dean wrote:
Okay, so it only took me two solid days not a week. PlayOrm in master
branch now supports virtual CF's or virtual tables in ONE CF, so you can
have 1000's or millions of virtual CF's in one CF now. It works with all
the Scalable-SQL, works with the joins, and works with the PlayOrm command
Two ways to do it, if you are using the ORM half, you just annotate
So it's stored in sharedCf with the table name of MyVirtualCfName(in command
line tool, use MyVirtualCfName to query the table).
Then if you don't know your meta data ahead of time, you need to create
DboTableMeta and DboColumnMeta objects and save them for every table you
create and can use TypedRow to read and persist (which is what we have a
If you try it out let me know. We usually get bug fixes in pretty fast if
you run into anything. (more and more questions are forming on stack
overflow as well ;) ).