Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of blair@orcaware.com designates
 108.0.197.17 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <51CF312C.5060203@orcaware.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 12:10:36 -0700
From: Blair Zajac <blair@orcaware.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.5; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 Thunderbird/3.1.20
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
CC: Sylvain Lebresne <sylvain@datastax.com>
Subject: Re: Mixing CAS UPDATE and non-CAS DELETE
References: <51C90EF1.5070300@orcaware.com>
 <CAKkz8Q2h1bmTqgrFtjv+vMg+30NFkB3sDpv6kOcJuXeYuxhHGg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKkz8Q2h1bmTqgrFtjv+vMg+30NFkB3sDpv6kOcJuXeYuxhHGg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 6/26/13 10:26 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Blair Zajac <blair@orcaware.com
> <mailto:blair@orcaware.com>> wrote:
>
>     But if I want to delete it regardless of v1, then this doesn't work:
>
>        DELETE FROM test WHERE k = 0 IF EXISTS
>
>
> That's correct, though we should probably fix that at some point. I've
> opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-5708 for that.

I was thinking about this and wondering if there's even a point to 
having a CAS delete in this case?  Is "DELETE FROM test WHERE k = 0" the 
same as "DELETE FROM test WHERE k = 0 IF EXISTS" from a practical point 
of view?  One is still racing with any other updates to the row, either 
with  the proposal from other CASes or an implicit race with whoever has 
a later timestamp?

Does one save a row tombstone if one uses "IF EXISTS"?

>     So one is left to
>
>        DELETE FROM test WHERE k = 0
>
>     How does this non-CAS DELETE mix with a CAS UPDATE for the same
>     partition key?  Will they properly not step over each other?
>
>
> Depends on what you mean by "not step over each other". A CAS update
> will end up inserting columns with a timestamp that is basically the one
> of the start of the paxos algorithm use underneath. The delete itself
> will be a tombstone with a timestamp of when you execute that delete. So
> the basic rule of "the more recent wins" will apply. Of course if 2 such
> operations contend, you can't really know which will win. But if you do
> a delete at QUORUM, followed by a CAS update IF NOT EXISTS (and there is
> no other concurrently running operation on that row) you are guaranteed
> that your update will succeed.
>
> I don't know if I've answered your question.

Yes, thanks.  I was wondering if the non-CAS delete ignores any 
outstanding proposals on the row.

Blair