econds (note we are not
using batch statements, which I believe have/had a TS granularity bug in the
past).
From: Alexandre Dutra
To: Jen Smith ; "user@cassandra.apache.org"
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: client time stamp - force to be continuously i
to clarify - the currentRecordTs would be saved on a field on the record being
persisted
From: Jen Smith
To: "user@cassandra.apache.org"
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 10:32 AM
Subject: client time stamp - force to be continuously increasing?
I'd like to get feedbac
I'd like to get feedback/opinions on a possible work around for a timestamp +
data consistency edge case issue.
Context for this question:
When using client timestamp (default timestamp), on C* that supports it (v3
protocol), on occasion a record update is lost when executing updates in rapid
su
