wal | Developer - Big Data(I&D)| 9731648376 | www.mu-sigma.com
>
> From: Pierre Chalamet [mailto:pie...@chalamet.net]
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 3:31 PM
> To: user@cassandra.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Doubt in Row key range scan
>
> Hi,
>
> It's normal.
&g
oubt in Row key range scan
Hi,
It's normal.
Keys to replicas are determined with a hash (md5) when using the random
partitionner (which you are using I guess).
You probably want to switch to the order preserving partionner or tweak your
data model in order to rely on 2nd index for such
You are using the Random Partitioner.
Using the RP is a good thing because you avoid hot spots, but it has
its defaults too. You can't scan a slice of row, they won't be ordered
because all your keys are stored using their md5 values.
You should review your data model to use columns to order your
ierre
-Original Message-
From: Prakrati Agrawal
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 04:39:46
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Doubt in Row key range scan
Dear all
I have stored my data into Cassandra database in the format "tickerID_date".
Now when I spec
Dear all
I have stored my data into Cassandra database in the format "tickerID_date".
Now when I specify the row key range like 1_2012/05/24(start) to
1_2012/05/27(end) it says that the end key md5 value is lesser than start key
md5 value. So I changed my start key to 1_2012/05/27 and end key
How does range scan work in Cassandra? Does the read of a key perform the
read across all the SSTables that contain the key and return the row or are
SSTables processed sequentially? If I have a key k and its columns are
spread across N SSTables then does the read of key k return the row with all
I see, now it makes perfect sense.
Thank you.
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Aaron Morton wrote:
> It's not pattern matching, it's comparing / ordering the byte values. You
> are asking to return 100 keys in ascending order where the value of the key
> (after the partitioner has been applied)
It's not pattern matching, it's comparing / ordering the byte values. You are asking to return 100 keys in ascending order where the value of the key (after the partitioner has been applied) is greater than "1_265_8_12" If you want to do a seek and partial scan, you could use an end value in the li
Hello,
Cassandra is configure as following:
conf/cassandra.yaml | grep 'partitioner:'
partitioner: org.apache.cassandra.dht.ByteOrderedPartitioner
Why yet doing range query on part of the key return more results then
expected (column, CF and keyspace names masked):
[default@KEYSPACE] list CF1
Ah ok, so i have to build a hash index to get all relevant data sets first,
than cassa performs the range scan.
Good to know, thx a lot! :o)
2010/11/14 Jonathan Ellis
> Because 0.7.0 indexes are more like a Hash index than a B-tree.
>
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:39 PM, André Fiedler
Because 0.7.0 indexes are more like a Hash index than a B-tree.
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:39 PM, André Fiedler
wrote:
> Ok, i read this before. Could you explain (short) why i have to do this? In
> my opinion it isn't necessary, i want to understand why it is. ;o)
> thx André!
>
> 2010/11/14 Nat
Ok, i read this before. Could you explain (short) why i have to do this? In
my opinion it isn't necessary, i want to understand why it is. ;o)
thx André!
2010/11/14 Nate McCall
> You must have a clause with an EQ operator on an indexed column present.
> See:
> http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/A
You must have a clause with an EQ operator on an indexed column present.
See:
http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/API07#IndexClause
and:
http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/API07#get_indexed_slices
For more details.
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:09 PM, André Fiedler
wrote:
> Hi, i wrote a question on t
Hi, i wrote a question on the phpcassa group, but i think its more cassandra
related. Would be nice, if you get some time and take a look:
http://groups.google.com/group/phpcassa/browse_thread/thread/1b6acb5f7dccb94f
greetings André
I see what you mean -- you have understood correctly.
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Henrik Schröder wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 14:15, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Henrik Schröder
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 14:47, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>> >>
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Henrik Schröder wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 14:15, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Henrik Schröder
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 14:47, Jonathan Ellis
>> wrote:
>> >> It's a unique index then? And you're trying to read
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 14:15, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Henrik Schröder
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 14:47, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> >> It's a unique index then? And you're trying to read things ordered by
> >> the index, not just "give me keys with that
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Henrik Schröder wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 14:47, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>> It's a unique index then? And you're trying to read things ordered by
>> the index, not just "give me keys with that have a column with this
>> value?"
>
> Yes, because if we have mo
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 14:47, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Henrik Schröder
> wrote:
> > For each indexvalue we insert a row where the key is indexid + ":" +
> > indexvalue encoded as hex string, and the row contains only one column,
> > where the name is the object k
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Henrik Schröder wrote:
> For each indexvalue we insert a row where the key is indexid + ":" +
> indexvalue encoded as hex string, and the row contains only one column,
> where the name is the object key encoded as a bytearray, and the value is
> empty.
It's a uniq
>
> So all the values for an entire index will be in one row? That
> doesn't sound good.
>
> You really want to put each index [and each table] in its own CF, but
> until we can do that dynamically (0.7) you could at least make the
> index row keys a tuple of (indexid, indexvalue) and the column n
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Henrik Schröder wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> We're trying to implement a virtual datastore for our users where they can
> set up "tables" and "indexes" to store objects and have them indexed on
> arbitrary properties. And we did a test implementation for Cassandra in
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Henrik Schröder wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 15:17, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
>>
>> I don't know If that could play any role, but if ever you have
>> disabled the assertions
>> when running cassandra (that is, you removed the -ea line in
>> cassandra.in.sh), the
I noticed you turned Key caching off in your ColumnFamily declaration,
have you tried experimenting with this on and playing key caching
configuration? Also, have you looked at the JMX output for what
commands are pending execution? That is always helpful to me in
hunting down bottlenecks.
-Nate
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 15:17, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> I don't know If that could play any role, but if ever you have
> disabled the assertions
> when running cassandra (that is, you removed the -ea line in
> cassandra.in.sh), there
> was a bug in 0.6beta2 that will make read in row with lots o
I don't know If that could play any role, but if ever you have
disabled the assertions
when running cassandra (that is, you removed the -ea line in
cassandra.in.sh), there
was a bug in 0.6beta2 that will make read in row with lots of columns
quite slow.
Another problem you may have is if you have
Hi everyone,
We're trying to implement a virtual datastore for our users where they can
set up "tables" and "indexes" to store objects and have them indexed on
arbitrary properties. And we did a test implementation for Cassandra in the
following way:
Objects are stored in one columnfamily, each k
27 matches
Mail list logo
