because it's not worth the penalty to concurrency
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Alvin UW wrote:
> Why the secondary index is not updated absolutely atomically?
>
> 2010/9/2 Jonathan Ellis
>>
>> yes, it is updated atomically (but not in isolation, it's possible for
>> a client to see changes t
Why the secondary index is not updated absolutely atomically?
2010/9/2 Jonathan Ellis
> yes, it is updated atomically (but not in isolation, it's possible for
> a client to see changes to one but not the other temporarily)
>
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Alvin Jin wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
Thanks.
But why does this situation happen?
I mean "but not in isolation".
Can we avoid it?
2010/9/2 Jonathan Ellis
> yes, it is updated atomically (but not in isolation, it's possible for
> a client to see changes to one but not the other temporarily)
>
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Alvin J
yes, it is updated atomically (but not in isolation, it's possible for
a client to see changes to one but not the other temporarily)
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Alvin Jin wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I was thinking the details of the secondary index in 0.7.
> Will it be updated atomically with its b
Hello,
I was thinking the details of the secondary index in 0.7.
Will it be updated atomically with its base table?
Any explaination the on secondary index is appreciated.
Thanks.
--
View this message in context:
http://cassandra-user-incubator-apache-org.3065146.n2.nabble.com/Is-the-secondar
