Actually I didn't concurrent update the same records, because I first create it, then search it, then delete it. The version conflict solved failed, due to delete local time stamp is earlier then create local time stamp.

2013/3/6 aaron morton <>
Otherwise, it means the version conflict solving strong depends on global sequence id (timestamp) which need provide by client ?
If you have an  area of your data model that has a high degree of concurrency C* may not be the right match.

In 1.1 we have atomic updates so clients see either the entire write or none of it. And sometimes you can design a data model that does mutate shared values, but writes ledger entries instead. See Matt Denis talk here or this post


Aaron Morton
Freelance Cassandra Developer
New Zealand


On 4/03/2013, at 4:30 PM, Jason Tang <> wrote:


The timestamp provided by my client is unix timestamp (with ntp), and as I said, due to the ntp drift, the local unix timestamp is not accurately synchronized (compare to my case).

So for short, client can not provide global sequence number to indicate the event order.

But I wonder, I configured Cassandra consistency level as write QUORUM. So for one record, I suppose Cassandra has the ability to decide the final update results.

Otherwise, it means the version conflict solving strong depends on global sequence id (timestamp) which need provide by client ?


2013/3/4 Sylvain Lebresne <>
The problem is, what is the sequence number you are talking about is exactly?

Or let me put it another way: if you do have a sequence number that provides a total ordering of your operation, then that is exactly what you should use as your timestamp. What Cassandra calls the timestamp, is exactly what you call seqID, it's the number Cassandra uses to decide the order of operation.

Except that in real life, provided you have more than one client talking to Cassandra, then providing a total ordering of operation is hard, and in fact not doable efficiently. So in practice, people use unix timestamp (with ntp) which provide a very good while cheap approximation of the real life order of operations.

But again, if you do know how to assign a more precise "timestamp", Cassandra let you use that: you can provid your own timestamp (using unix timestamp is just the default). The point being, unix timestamp is the better approximation we have in practice.


On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Jason Tang <> wrote:

  Previous I met a consistency problem, you can refer the link below for the whole story.

  And after check the code, seems I found some clue of the problem. Maybe some one can check this.

  For short, I have Cassandra cluster (1.0.3), The consistency level is read/write quorum, replication_factor is 3. 

  Here is event sequence:

seqID   NodeA   NodeB   NodeC
1.         New      New       New
2.         Update  Update   Update
3.         Delete   Delete    

When try to read from NodeB and NodeC, "Digest mismatch" exception triggered, so Cassandra try to resolve this version conflict.
But the result is value "Update".

Here is the suspect root cause, the version conflict resolved based on time stamp.

Node C local time is a bit earlier then node A.

"Update" requests sent from node C with time stamp 00:00:00.050, "Delete" sent from node A with time stamp 00:00:00.020, which is not same as the event sequence.

So the version conflict resolved incorrectly.

It is true?

If Yes, then it means, consistency level can secure the conflict been found, but to solve it correctly, dependence one time synchronization's accuracy, e.g. NTP ?