+1
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Eric Evans wrote:
>
> The 0.6.0 blockers are now out of the way and things are looking good. I
> propose the following tag/artifacts for 0.6.0-rc1:
>
> SVN Tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.6.0-rc1
> 0.6.0-rc1 artifacts: http:/
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Eric Evans wrote:
>
> The 0.6.0 blockers are now out of the way and things are looking good. I
> propose the following tag/artifacts for 0.6.0-rc1:
>
> SVN Tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.6.0-rc1
> 0.6.0-rc1 artifacts: http://pe
+1
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 11:02, Eric Evans wrote:
>
> The 0.6.0 blockers are now out of the way and things are looking good. I
> propose the following tag/artifacts for 0.6.0-rc1:
>
> SVN Tag:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.6.0-rc1
> 0.6.0-rc1 artifacts: http://pe
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:52 AM, Michael Poole wrote:
> SSTables aren't written on every update. Why would a B-Tree
> implementation differ?
Because traditional B-trees are update-in-place, and although CouchDB
has an append-only B-tree, it's limited to one writer at a time which
is (one reason)
Avinash Lakshman writes:
> Here is why I think it is not a good fit for Cassandra (at least top 3
> reasons that come to mind):
>
> (1) Cassandra strives to make updates very very cheap. With BTree's every
> update is a read modify write.
> (2) BTree on rebalance tend to result in a lot of fragmen
