[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7056?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14042919#comment-14042919
]
Jonathan Ellis commented on CASSANDRA-7056:
-------------------------------------------
bq. Using the timestamp either way certainly seems the easiest solution, it
will just benefit from improved timestamps when we get them.
To be clear, using non-unique ts as RAMP id is broken, but I agree that we
should proceed here with the assumption that we'll solve the unique ts problem;
if that doesn't work out we can figure out a plan B.
bq. Currently we have no concept of a "batched read" so this might need
protocol support
Should we just make it automatic for IN queries? That would leave the option
of doing a bunch of asynchronous SELECTs if you wanted to opt out.
bq. As far as writes are concerned, I'd be inclined to simply replace current
LOGGED batches entirely.
Agreed.
> Add RAMP transactions
> ---------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-7056
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7056
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Wish
> Components: Core
> Reporter: Tupshin Harper
> Priority: Minor
>
> We should take a look at
> [RAMP|http://www.bailis.org/blog/scalable-atomic-visibility-with-ramp-transactions/]
> transactions, and figure out if they can be used to provide more efficient
> LWT (or LWT-like) operations.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
