Yeah, my bad. I have paging on the brain. Seriously. I can't think of a use-case in which a LIMIT based on # bytes makes sense from a user perspective.
On Mon, Jun 12, 2023, at 1:35 PM, Jeff Jirsa wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 9:50 AM Benjamin Lerer <b.le...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> If you have rows that vary significantly in their size, your latencies >>> could end up being pretty unpredictable using a LIMIT BY <row_count>. Being >>> able to specify a limit by bytes at the driver / API level would allow app >>> devs to get more deterministic results out of their interaction w/the DB if >>> they're looking to respond back to a client within a certain time frame and >>> / or determine next steps in the app (continue paging, stop, etc) based on >>> how long it took to get results back. >> >> Are you talking about the page size or the LIMIT. Once the LIMIT is reached >> there is no "continue paging". LIMIT is also at the CQL level not at the >> driver level. >> I can totally understand the need for a page size in bytes not for a LIMIT. > > Would only ever EXPECT to see a page size in bytes, never a LIMIT specifying > bytes. > > I know the C-11745 ticket says LIMIT, too, but that feels very odd to me. >
