I was pretty sure I mentioned it quite early on in this discussion ;-).
Something about logical deletes vs. physical deletes.
Cheers,
Nico
Am Donnerstag, den 23.06.2011, 10:21 -0700 schrieb Greg Nelson:
> Something to keep in mind here -- which I don't think has been
> mentioned yet -- is the int
Something to keep in mind here -- which I don't think has been mentioned yet --
is the interplay with Bitcask. One may want to *actually* delete the key rather
than store application-defined tombstones to keep from accumulating entries in
Bitcask's in-memory keydir.
On Thursday, June 23, 2011 a
On 6/23/2011 11:16 AM, Jeremiah Peschka wrote:
The bigger question, though, is "Why do I want to store a completely
empty record?"
In the context of riak, the answer might be that record changes are
handled differently than record deletes. If you want the things that
happen to make concurre
NULLability in data storage is different than NULLability in program. In the
relational database world, NULL is used to signify an unknown - the value could
be anything. If you have a record that only has a key (Primary Key for those
playing along in SQL-land), and no value, then you can't do mu
Speaking of deleting keys, I have a question. It may be naive, as I'm a
developer, but not very specialized in data storage issues, especially
key/value stores.
I don't think I've brought this up on this list, but if I have, I apologize,
and feel free to ignore this message. (I couldn't find
