yep, I'll probably try both
I don't think there is anything out there which can beat in-memory db in
terms of bulk throughput (e.g
http://cs.nyu.edu/cs/faculty/shasha/papers/sigmodpap.pdf) but will see how
far we can get with open source tools and using a combination of persistent
storage and cach
I guess if you are going to read the full 5MB at once then that makes
more sense.
But if you are going to slice it or access parts by column name then
the other does.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:15 PM, alex kamil wrote:
> which index structure would fit Cassandra more naturally and perform better
which index structure would fit Cassandra more naturally and perform better:
1) a sparse index where in each row there are 100 columns each containing a
5MB data block (under a single column family)
or
2) a dense index where each row contains 100 columns with a single 6bytes
value (under a single
