On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:06 AM, aaron morton wrote:
> For a reasonable large amount of use cases (for me, 2 out of 3 at the
> moment) supercolumns will be units of data where the columns (attributes)
> will never change by themselves or where the data does not change anyway
> (archived data).
>
>
> For a reasonable large amount of use cases (for me, 2 out of 3 at the moment)
> supercolumns will be units of data where the columns (attributes) will never
> change by themselves or where the data does not change anyway (archived data).
Can you use a standard CF and pack the multiple columns
> Anyway, to sum that up, expiring columns are 1 byte more and
> non-expiring ones are 7 bytes
> less. Not arguing, it's still fairly verbose, especially with tons of
> very small columns.
>
Yes, you are right, sorry.
Trying to do one thing to many at the same time.
My brain filtered out part of t
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Terje Marthinussen
wrote:
> Hi,
> If you make a supercolumn today, what you end up with is:
> - short + "Super Column name"
> - int (local deletion time)
> - long (delete time)
> Byte array of columns each with:
> - short + "column name"
> - int (TTL)
> - i
