incubator-cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jack Krupansky" <>
Subject Re: CQL Select Map using an IN relationship
Date Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:08:55 GMT
“range key” is formally known as “clustering column”. One or more clustering columns
can be specified to identify individual rows in a partition. Without clustering columns, one
partition is one row. So, it’s a matter of whether you want your rows to be in the same
partition or distributed.

-- Jack Krupansky

From: Laing, Michael 
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: CQL Select Map using an IN relationship

Think of them as: 

  PRIMARY KEY (partition_key[, range_key])

where the partition_key can be compounded as:

  (partition_key0 [, partition_key1, ...])

and the optional range_key can be compounded as: 

  range_key0 [, range_key1 ...]

If you do this: PRIMARY KEY (key1, key2) - then key1 is the partition_key and key2 is the
range_key and queries will work that hash to key1 (the partition) using = or IN and specify
a range on key2.

But if you do this: PRIMARY key ((key1, key2)) then (key1, key2) is the compound partition
key - there is no range key - and you can specify = on key1 and = or IN on key2 (but not a

Anyway that's what I remember! Hope it helps.


On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:27 AM, David Savage <> wrote:

  Great that works, thx! I probably would have never found that... 

  It now makes me wonder in general when to use PRIMARY KEY (key1, key2) or PRIMARY KEY ((key1,
key2)), any examples would be welcome if you have the time.

  Kind regards,


  On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Laing, Michael <> wrote:

    Create your table like this and it will work: 

    CREATE TABLE test.documents (group text,id bigint,data map<text,text>,PRIMARY KEY
((group, id)));

    The extra parens catenate 'group' and 'id' into the partition key - IN will work on the
last component of a partition key.


    On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:40 AM, David Savage <> wrote:

      Nope, upgraded to 2.0.5 and still get the same problem, I actually simplified the problem
a little in my first post, there's a composite primary key involved as I need to partition
ids into groups 

      So the full CQL statements are:

      CREATE KEYSPACE test WITH replication = {'class':'SimpleStrategy', 'replication_factor':3};

      CREATE TABLE test.documents (group text,id bigint,data map<text,text>,PRIMARY
KEY (group, id));

      INSERT INTO test.documents(id,group,data) VALUES (0,'test',{'count':'0'});

      INSERT INTO test.documents(id,group,data) VALUES (1,'test',{'count':'1'});

      INSERT INTO test.documents(id,group,data) VALUES (2,'test',{'count':'2'});

      SELECT id,data FROM test.documents WHERE group='test' AND id IN (0,1,2);

      Thanks for your help.

      Kind regards,


      On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:00 PM, David Savage <> wrote:

        Hmmm that maybe the problem, I'm currently testing with 2.0.2 which got dragged in
by the cassandra unit library I'm using for testing [1] I will try to fix my build dependencies
and retry, thx.



        On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Laing, Michael <>

          I have no problem doing this w 2.0.5 - what version of C* are you using? Or maybe
I don't understand your data model... attach 'creates' if you don't mind. 


          On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:24 AM, David Savage <> wrote:

            Hi Peter, 

            Thanks for the help, unfortunately I'm not sure that's the problem, the id is
the primary key on the documents table and the timestamp is the primary key on the eventlog

            Kind regards,


            On Thursday, 13 March 2014, Peter Lin <> wrote:

              it's not clear to me if your "id" column is the KEY or just a regular column
with secondary index.

              queries that have IN on non primary key columns isn't supported yet. not sure
if that answers your question.

              On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:12 AM, David Savage <>

                Hi there, 

                I'm experimenting using cassandra and have run across an error message which
I need a little more information on.

                The use case I'm experimenting with is a series of document updates (documents
being an arbitrary map of key value pairs), I would like to find the latest document updates
after a specified time period. I don't want to store many copies of the documents (one per
update) as the updates are often only to single keys in the map so that would involve a lot
of duplicated data.

                The solution I've found that seems to fit best in terms of performance is
to have two tables.

                One that has an event log of timeuuid -> docid and a second that stores
the documents themselves stored by docid -> map<string, string>. I then run two queries,
one to select ids that have changed after a certain time:

                SELECT id FROM eventlog WHERE timestamp>=minTimeuuid($minimumTime)

                and then a second to select the actual documents themselves

                SELECT id, data FROM documents WHERE id IN (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7…)

                However this then explodes on query with the error message:

                "Cannot restrict PRIMARY KEY part id by IN relation as a collection is selected
by the query"

                Detective work lead me to these lines in org.apache.cassandra.cql3.statementsSelectStatement:

                                    // We only support IN for the last name and for compact
storage so far
                                    // TODO: #3885 allows us to extend to non compact as well,
but that remains to be done
                                    if (i != stmt.columnRestrictions.length - 1)
                                        throw new InvalidRequestException(String.format("PRIMARY
KEY part %s cannot be restricted by IN relation", cname));
                                    else if (stmt.selectACollection())
                                        throw new InvalidRequestException(String.format("Cannot
restrict PRIMARY KEY part %s by IN relation as a collection is selected by the query", cname));

                It seems like #3885 will allow support for the first IF block above, but I
don't think it will allow the second, am I correct? 

                Any pointers on how I can work around this would be greatly appreciated.

                Kind regards,


View raw message