is N:C:E possibly ignoring thrift exceptions?
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Mike Gallamore <mike.e.gallam...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On 04/08/2010 04:53 AM, Philip Jackson wrote: >> >> At Wed, 07 Apr 2010 13:19:26 -0700, >> Mike Gallamore wrote: >> >>> >>> I have writes to cassandra that are failing, or at least a read shortly >>> after a write is still getting an old value. I realize Cassandra is >>> "eventually consistent" but this system is a single CPU single node with >>> consistency level set to 1, so this seems odd to me. >>> >> >> I'm having this problem too (see my post the other day). I use N::C >> but generate timestamps in the same way as N::C::E, I've tested that >> each is smaller than the next so I'm wondering if I'm barking up the >> wrong tree. >> >> If you figure out what's going on please do post back here, I'll do >> the same. >> >> Cheers, >> Phil >> > > I modified N::C::E to output the timestamp each time the timestamp > subroutine is called. I've confirmed that the timestamp is increasing (never > getting two updates with the same timestamp) but I'm still loosing data. > > This is painful because part of the data structure I'm working with is a > revolving one week bucket of daily scores. When the system forgets that the > day has changed it thinks it is still yesterday and "nukes" the data in that > bucket (which it just set) thinking that it is week old data. The desired > behavior of course is that it realize that it is a new day (this is stored > in the data structure itself and isn't modifible as it depends on when the > data was first created for a particular row which "bucket" the system will > be working with any given day) and nuke the new day's old data before > updating it with a new score. >
