cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sotirios Delimanolis <>
Subject Documented CQL limits seem to be wrong (how are sets and lists implemented in the storage layer)
Date Tue, 10 Jan 2017 21:00:34 GMT
We're using Cassandra 2.2.
This document lists a number of CQL limits. I'm particularly interested in the Collection
limits for Set and List. If I've interpreted it correctly, the document states that values
in Sets are limited to 65535 bytes. 
This limit, as far as I know, exists because the set identity is implemented with a composite
value in the column name of the storage engine's cell (similar to the clustering column value
limit), which CQL restricts to that many bytes. (Is this correct?)
Consider a table like
CREATE TABLE test.bounds (    someid text,    someorder text,    words set<text>,
    PRIMARY KEY (guid, deviceid))
PreparedStatement ps = session.prepare("INSERT INTO bounds (someid, someorder, epset) VALUES
(?, ?, ?)");BoundStatement bs = ps.bind("id", "order", ImmutableSet.of(StringUtils.repeat('a',

This will throw the expected exception
Caused by: com.datastax.driver.core.exceptions.InvalidQueryException: The sum of all clustering
columns is too long (66024 > 65535)
Now if I change the table to use a List instead of a Set
CREATE TABLE test.bounds (    someid text,    someorder text,    words Set<text>,
    PRIMARY KEY (guid, deviceid))
and use
BoundStatement bs = ps.bind("id", "order", ImmutableList.of(StringUtils.repeat('a', 66000)));
I do not receive an exception. The document, however, states that List value sizes are also
limited to 65535 bytes. Is the document incorrect or am I misinterpreting?
I assumed List values are implemented as simple column values in the underlying storage and
the order is maintained through their timestamps.

View raw message