"COMPACT STORAGE imposes the limit that you can't add columns to your tables."
Is absolutely false. If anything CQL is imposing the limits!
Simple to prove. Try something like this:
create table abc (x int);
insert into abc (y) values (5);
and watch CQL reject the insert saying something to the effect of 'y? whats that? Did you mean CQL2 OR 1.5?, or hamburgers'
Then go to the Cassandra cli and do this:
create column family abd;
set ['abd']['y']= '5';
set ['abd']['z']='4';AND IT WORKS!
I noticed the nomenclature starting to spring up around the term "legacy tables" and docs based around "can't do with them". Frankly it makes me nuts because...
This little known web company named google produced a white paper about what a ColumnFamily data model could do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BigTable . Cassandra was build on the BigTable/ColumnFamily data model. There was also this big movement called NoSQL, where people wanted to break free of query languages and rigid schema's....
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Jonathan Haddad <email@example.com> wrote:
The CQL docs recommend not using it - I didn't just make that up. :) COMPACT STORAGE imposes the limit that you can't add columns to your tables. For those of us that are heavy CQL users, this limitation is a total deal breaker.On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Robert Coli <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Jonathan Haddad <email@example.com> wrote:
It's advised you do not use compact storage, as it's primarily for backwards compatibility.Many Apache Cassandra experts do not advise against using COMPACT STORAGE.  Use CQL3 non-COMPACT STORAGE if you want to, but there are also valid reasons to not use it. Asserting that there is some good reason you should not use COMPACT STORAGE (other than range ghosts?) seems inaccurate. :)=Rob--