It's best to just use timestamps as the current millisecond (or better) time and treat them as an internal implementation thing for cassandra. Playing with them will only bring you pain. As Phil says when applying a mutation, if the time stamp is less than the current value cassandra will ignore th
My experience is that timestamps have to be sequentially increasing for
writes to work. Soft/silent error if you do not follow this protocol.
Haven't tested against > 0.6.4 though.
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Lucas Nodine wrote:
> Chris, I believe if the timestamp being written if the same
Chris, I believe if the timestamp being written if the same or older it will
not apply the write, but do not quote me on this, test it. In this case, if
the timestamp value does not matter, you could simply always write with a
timestamp of 1.
- LN
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 5:58 AM, Christian Decke
In theory you could use timestamps that go back in time for this CF. That way
the first write will persist over future writes.
On Sep 21, 2010, at 6:58 AM, Christian Decker
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a rather strange problem I'd like to address. As I understand it a
> write in cassandra
Hi all,
I have a rather strange problem I'd like to address. As I understand it a
write in cassandra always overwrites already existing data, so it is not
possible to have a way to create an index pointing to the first entry
matching some criteria. What I mean is that I have a CF which stores user
