From: "Hiller, Dean" <Dean.Hiller@nrel.gov>
To: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>; Wei Zhu <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: multiget_slice SlicePredicate
What's wrong with multiget…parallel performance is great from multiple disks and so usually that is a good thing.
Also, something looks wrong, since you have list<binary> keys, I would expect the Map to be Map<binary, list<ColumnOrSuperColumn>>
Are you sure you have that correct? IF you set range to 100, it should be 100 columns each row but it never hurts to run the code and verify.
From: Wei Zhu <email@example.com
>>, Wei Zhu <firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Monday, December 10, 2012 2:07 PM
To: Cassandr usergroup <email@example.com
Subject: multiget_slice SlicePredicate
I know it's probably not a good idea to use multiget, but for my use case, it's the only choice,
I have question regarding the
SlicePredicate argument of the multiget_slice
The SlicePredicate takes slice_range which takes start, end and range. I suppose start and end will apply to each individual row. How about range, is it a accumulative column count of all the rows or to the individual row?
If I set range to 100, is it 100 columns per row, or total?
Thanks for you reply,
map<string,list<ColumnOrSuperColumn>> multiget_slice(list<binary> keys, ColumnParent column_parent, SlicePredicate predicate, ConsistencyLevel consistency_level)