Created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2592 to address this.
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Eric Evans wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-05-02 at 10:41 -0500, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>> Where is that happening then? RelationType.forString is not lossy,
>> and neither is the RelationType ->
On Mon, 2011-05-02 at 10:41 -0500, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> Where is that happening then? RelationType.forString is not lossy,
> and neither is the RelationType -> IndexExpression conversion in
> getIndexedSlices.
WhereClause.and(Relation) where it assigns start/end keys.
--
Eric Evans
eev...@ra
Where is that happening then? RelationType.forString is not lossy,
and neither is the RelationType -> IndexExpression conversion in
getIndexedSlices.
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Eric Evans wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-05-02 at 09:29 -0500, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>> 80% sure that is an obsolete comm
On Mon, 2011-05-02 at 09:29 -0500, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> 80% sure that is an obsolete comment.
>
> Eric, can you verify?
No, it's true.
--
Eric Evans
eev...@rackspace.com
80% sure that is an obsolete comment.
Eric, can you verify?
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 5:22 AM, David Boxenhorn wrote:
> Is this still true?
>
> Note: The greater-than and less-than operators (> and <) result in key
> ranges that are inclusive of the terms. There is no supported notion of
> “strictl
Is this still true?
*Note: The greater-than and less-than operators (> and <) result in key
ranges that are inclusive of the terms. There is no supported notion of
“strictly” greater-than or less-than; these operators are merely supported
as aliases to >= and <=.
*
I think that making > and < ali
