: Re: Achieving isolation on single row modifications with batch_mutate
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:12 AM, E S wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out the best way to achieve single row modification
> isolation for readers.
I have a lot of No's for you. :)
> As an example, I have 2 rows
It's hard to tell without knowing the the nature of the data you're writing,
but you might want to think about whether you can embed any sort of version
number and/or checksum into the column names of the chunk columns. That
way, you could very easily determine that the data you wanted to retrieve
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:12 AM, E S wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out the best way to achieve single row modification
> isolation for readers.
I have a lot of No's for you. :)
> As an example, I have 2 rows (1,2) with 2 columns (a,b). If I modify both
> rows,
> I don't care if the user sees
er 30, 2010 12:57:07 AM
Subject: Re: Achieving isolation on single row modifications with batch_mutate
In this case, it sounds like you should combine columns A and B if you
are writing them both at the same time, reading them both at the same
time, and need them to be consistent.
Obviously, you
In this case, it sounds like you should combine columns A and B if you
are writing them both at the same time, reading them both at the same
time, and need them to be consistent.
Obviously, you're probably dealing with more than two columns here, but
there's generally not any value in splitting so
I'm trying to figure out the best way to achieve single row modification
isolation for readers.
As an example, I have 2 rows (1,2) with 2 columns (a,b). If I modify both
rows,
I don't care if the user sees the write operations completed on 1 and not on 2
for a short time period (seconds). I
