I started off with 3.0.6 and for my personal use case(s) they had the same
bugs as tick tock.
2016-10-04 19:03 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Haddad :
> I strongly recommend avoiding tick tock. You'll be one of the only people
> putting it in prod and will likely hit a number of weird issues nobody will
> be
I strongly recommend avoiding tick tock. You'll be one of the only people
putting it in prod and will likely hit a number of weird issues nobody will
be able to help you with.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:40 PM Benjamin Roth
wrote:
> I have the impression, that not the tick-tock is the real problem
I have the impression, that not the tick-tock is the real problem but MVs
are not really battle-tested yet.
Depending on the model, they put much more complexity on a cluster and it's
behaviour under heavy load. Especially if you are going to create an MV
with a different partition key than the bas
>Would you consider 3.0.x to be more stable than 3.x?
I guess yes, but there are some discussion on this list:
(C)* stable version after 3.5
Upgrade from 3.0.6 to 3.7.
It seems to be eternal topic till tick-tock approach stabilizes.
Best regards, Vladimir Yudovin,
Winguzone Inc - Hosted Clo
I use the self-compiled master (3.10, ticktock). I had to fix a severe bug
on my own and decided to go with the latest code.
Would you consider 3.0.x to be more stable than 3.x?
2016-10-04 18:14 GMT+02:00 Vladimir Yudovin :
> Hi Benjamin!
>
> >we now use CS 3.x and have been advised that 3.x is s
Hi Benjamin!
>we now use CS 3.x and have been advised that 3.x is still not considered
really production ready.
Did you consider using of 3.0.9? Actually it's 3.0 with almost an year fixes.
Best regards, Vladimir Yudovin,
Winguzone Inc - Hosted Cloud Cassandra on Azure and SoftLayer.
Launch y
MV build is also async.
In the end it's MV maintenance cost vs Lucene index maintenance cost. I
don't have clear figure to judge which one is better. Maybe you should
benchmark yourself. Anyway I'll be interested by the results
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Dorian Hoxha wrote:
> On lucene you
On lucene you can query+filter+sort on a single shard, so it should be
better than MV/sasi. The index building is a little async though.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Benjamin Roth
wrote:
> Thanks guys!
>
> Good to know, that my approach is basically right, but I will check that
> lucene indic
Thanks guys!
Good to know, that my approach is basically right, but I will check that
lucene indices by time.
2016-10-04 14:22 GMT+02:00 DuyHai Doan :
> "What scatter/gather? "
>
> http://www.slideshare.net/doanduyhai/sasi-cassandra-on-
> the-full-text-search-ride-voxxed-daybelgrade-2016/23
>
>
"What scatter/gather? "
http://www.slideshare.net/doanduyhai/sasi-cassandra-on-the-full-text-search-ride-voxxed-daybelgrade-2016/23
"If you partition your data by user_id then you query only 1 shard to get
sorted by time visitors for a user"
Exact, but in this case, you're using a 2nd index only
@DuyHai
What scatter/gather? If you partition your data by user_id then you query
only 1 shard to get sorted by time visitors for a user.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:09 PM, DuyHai Doan wrote:
> MV is right now your best choice for this kind of sorting behavior.
>
> Secondary index (whatever the im
MV is right now your best choice for this kind of sorting behavior.
Secondary index (whatever the impl, SASI or Lucene) has a cost of
scatter-gather if your cluster scale out. With MV you're at least
guaranteed to hit a single node everytime
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Dorian Hoxha wrote:
>
Can you use the lucene index
https://github.com/Stratio/cassandra-lucene-index ?
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Benjamin Roth
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have a frequently used pattern which seems to be quite costly in CS. The
> pattern is always the same: I have a unique key and a sorting by a
> differ
Hi!
I have a frequently used pattern which seems to be quite costly in CS. The
pattern is always the same: I have a unique key and a sorting by a
different field.
To give an example, here a real life example from our model:
CREATE TABLE visits.visits_in (
user_id int,
user_id_visitor int,
14 matches
Mail list logo
