that would be reasonable
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 6:41 AM, David Boxenhorn wrote:
> Would it be better to use an SQL-style timestamp ("-MM-DD HH:MM:SS.MMM")
> + unique id, then? They sort lexically the same as they sort
> chronologically.
>
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Leslie Viljoen
> wr
Would it be better to use an SQL-style timestamp ("-MM-DD HH:MM:SS.MMM")
+ unique id, then? They sort lexically the same as they sort
chronologically.
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Leslie Viljoen wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> > OPP uses lexical ordering
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> OPP uses lexical ordering on the keys, which isn't going to be the
> same as the natural order for a time-based uuid.
*palmface*
D.timestamp_create(sometime + 1)
> slice = @cassandra.get_range(:ReportData, :start => a.to_s, :finish => b.to_s)
> puts "SORT ERROR!" if a >= b # this never displays
>
>
>
> This is the error I get:
>
> /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/cassandra-0.8.2/lib/../vendor/gen-rb/
gems/cassandra-0.8.2/lib/../vendor/gen-rb/cassandra.rb:152:in
`recv_get_range_slices': start key must sort before (or equal to)
finish key in your partitioner!
(CassandraThrift::InvalidRequestException)
from
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/cassandra-0.8.2/lib/../vendor/gen-rb/cassandr
