yes. It doesn't use foreign keys or any constraints, they slow things down.
Exactly what you do not want. Check the history of the "features" that do read before write. Counters, the old read before write secondary indexes, the new collection functions that impose read before write. Once people start using them they send an email to cassandra mailing list that goes like this: " Subject: Why is Cassandra so slow? Message: I am using secondary indexes and as I write data I seem my READ_STAGE is filling up. What is going on? I thought cassandra was faster then MySQL? Once my database gets bigger then X GB it slows to a crawl. Please help. " If we make tools that design anti-pattern schema's people will use them, no one wins. On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Andrew Prendergast <a...@andrewprendergast.com > wrote: > *> > > http://www.edwardcapriolo.com/roller/edwardcapriolo/entry/schema_vs_schema_less > * > Thanks for the link Ed, I'm aware of all that. > > *> Does your the tool handle the fact that foreign keys do not work? > * > yes. It doesn't use foreign keys or any constraints, they slow things down. > > *> how are your dealing with the fact that a "primary key" in cassandra is > nothing like a "primary key" in a RDBMS? > * > locality preserving sequences & natural keys. There are no range queries. > > *> Generally under the impression that CRUD tools that auto-generate CQL > schema's can give someone the rope to hang themselves. > * > For those of us that know what we are doing and have had to put up with SQL > based ETL, refining CQL3 would be life changing and ease the transition. > > ap > > > > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > > > > http://www.edwardcapriolo.com/roller/edwardcapriolo/entry/schema_vs_schema_less > > > > Does your the tool handle the fact that foreign keys do not work? Or for > > that matter, how are your dealing with the fact that a "primary key" in > > cassandra is nothing like a "primary key" in a RDBMS? > > > > Generally under the impression that CRUD tools that auto-generate CQL > > schema's can give someone the rope to hang themselves. > > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Andrew Prendergast < > > a...@andrewprendergast.com > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Tristan, > > > > > > I've spent the last couple weekends testing the CRUD DML stuff and its > > very > > > close to meeting that objective (although NULL handling needs some > > tuning). > > > > > > The main hiccups are in the JDBC driver which I have been working > through > > > with Rick - once he accepts my patches it'll be pretty solid in terms > of > > > cross-platform compatibility. > > > > > > On the DDL, I personally have a need for similar compatibility. One app > > I'm > > > working on programmatically creates the schema for a rather big ETL > > > environment. It includes a very nice abstraction that creates databases > > and > > > tables to accommodate tuples as they pass through the pipeline and > > behaves > > > the same regardless of which DBMS is being used as the storage engine. > > > > > > This is possible because it turns out there is a subset of DDL that is > > > common to all of the DBMS platforms and it would be very useful to see > > that > > > in Cassandra. > > > > > > ap > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Tristan Tarrant > > > <tristan.tarr...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Sylvain Lebresne < > > sylv...@datastax.com > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > This is just one of a few small adjustments that can be made to > the > > > > > grammar > > > > > > to make everyone's life easier while still maintaining the spirit > > of > > > > > NOSQL. > > > > > > > > > > To be clear, I am *not* necessarily against making CQL3 closer to > the > > > > > ANSI-SQL > > > > > as a convenience. But only if that doesn't compromise the language > > > > > "integrity" > > > > > and is justified. Adding a syntax with a well known semantic but > > > without > > > > > > > > > > > > > To me database DDL (such as the CREATE statement we are talking > about) > > is > > > > always going to be handled in a custom fashion by applications. > > > > While ANSI SQL compatibility for CRUD operations is a great > objective, > > I > > > > don't think it really matters for DDL. > > > > > > > > Tristan > > > > > > > > > >
