On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Tommy Stendahl wrote:
> Thx, that was the problem. When I think about it it makes sense that I
> should use update in this scenario and not insert.
Per Sylvain on an old thread :
"
INSERT and UPDATE are not totally orthogonal in CQL and you should use
INSERT fo
mailto:tommy.stend...@ericsson.com]
Sent: vendredi 28 août 2015 13:34
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: TTL question
Yes, I understand that but I think this gives a strange behaviour.
Having values only on the primary key columns are perfectly valid so why
should the primary key be deleted
What if you use an update statement in the second query?
--
Jacques-Henri Berthemet
-Original Message-
From: Tommy Stendahl [mailto:tommy.stend...@ericsson.com]
Sent: vendredi 28 août 2015 13:34
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: TTL question
Yes, I understand that but I think
Yes, I understand that but I think this gives a strange behaviour.
Having values only on the primary key columns are perfectly valid so why
should the primary key be deleted by the TTL on the non-key column.
/Tommy
On 2015-08-28 13:19, Marcin Pietraszek wrote:
Please look at primary key which
Please look at primary key which you've defined. Second mutation has
exactly the same primary key - it overwrote row that you previously
had.
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Tommy Stendahl
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I did a small test using TTL but I didn't get the result I expected.
>
> I did this in sql
Hi,
I did a small test using TTL but I didn't get the result I expected.
I did this in sqlsh:
cqlsh> create TABLE foo.bar ( key int, cluster int, col int, PRIMARY KEY
(key, cluster)) ;
cqlsh> INSERT INTO foo.bar (key, cluster ) VALUES ( 1,1 );
cqlsh> SELECT * FROM foo.bar ;
key | cluster |
