cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jacques-Henri Berthemet <jacques-henri.berthe...@genesys.com>
Subject RE: TTL question
Date Fri, 28 Aug 2015 12:20:58 GMT
What if you use an update statement in the second query?

--
Jacques-Henri Berthemet

-----Original Message-----
From: Tommy Stendahl [mailto:tommy.stendahl@ericsson.com] 
Sent: vendredi 28 août 2015 13:34
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: TTL question

Yes, I understand that but I think this gives a strange behaviour. 
Having values only on the primary key columns are perfectly valid so why 
should the primary key be deleted by the TTL on the non-key column.

/Tommy

On 2015-08-28 13:19, Marcin Pietraszek wrote:
> Please look at primary key which you've defined. Second mutation has
> exactly the same primary key - it overwrote row that you previously
> had.
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Tommy Stendahl
> <tommy.stendahl@ericsson.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I did a small test using TTL but I didn't get the result I expected.
>>
>> I did this in sqlsh:
>>
>> cqlsh> create TABLE foo.bar ( key int, cluster int, col int, PRIMARY KEY
>> (key, cluster)) ;
>> cqlsh> INSERT INTO foo.bar (key, cluster ) VALUES ( 1,1 );
>> cqlsh> SELECT * FROM foo.bar ;
>>
>>   key | cluster | col
>> -----+---------+------
>>     1 |       1 | null
>>
>> (1 rows)
>> cqlsh> INSERT INTO foo.bar (key, cluster, col ) VALUES ( 1,1,1 ) USING TTL
>> 10;
>> cqlsh> SELECT * FROM foo.bar ;
>>
>>   key | cluster | col
>> -----+---------+-----
>>     1 |       1 |   1
>>
>> (1 rows)
>>
>> <wait for TTL to expire>
>>
>> cqlsh> SELECT * FROM foo.bar ;
>>
>>   key | cluster | col
>> -----+---------+-----
>>
>> (0 rows)
>>
>>
>>
>> Is this really correct?
>> I expected the result from the last select to be:
>>
>>   key | cluster | col
>> -----+---------+------
>>     1 |       1 | null
>>
>> (1 rows)
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tommy
>
>

Mime
View raw message