Have you confirmed that your clocks are all synced in the cluster?
This may be the result of an unintentional read-repair occurring if
that were the case.

-Nate

On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Joost Ouwerkerk <jo...@openplaces.org> wrote:
> Hmm... Even after deleting with cl.ALL, I'm getting data back for some
> rows after having deleted them.  Which rows return data is
> inconsistent from one run of the job to the next.
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Joost Ouwerkerk <jo...@openplaces.org> wrote:
>> To check that rows are gone, I check that KeySlice.columns is empty.  And as
>> I mentioned, immediately after the delete job, this returns the expected
>> number.
>> Unfortunately I reproduced with QUORUM this morning.  No node outages.  I am
>> going to try ALL to see if that changes anything, but I am starting to
>> wonder if I'm doing something else wrong.
>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> How are you checking that the rows are gone?
>>>
>>> Are you experiencing node outages during this?
>>>
>>> DC_QUORUM is unfinished code right now, you should avoid using it.
>>> Can you reproduce with normal QUORUM?
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Joost Ouwerkerk <jo...@openplaces.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> > I'm having trouble deleting rows in Cassandra.  After running a job that
>>> > deletes hundreds of rows, I run another job that verifies that the rows
>>> > are
>>> > gone.  Both jobs run correctly.  However, when I run the verification
>>> > job an
>>> > hour later, the rows have re-appeared.  This is not a case of "ghosting"
>>> > because the verification job actually checks that there is data in the
>>> > columns.
>>> >
>>> > I am running a cluster with 12 nodes and a replication factor of 3.  I
>>> > am
>>> > using DC_QUORUM consistency when deleting.
>>> >
>>> > Any ideas?
>>> > Joost.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jonathan Ellis
>>> Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
>>> co-founder of Riptano, the source for professional Cassandra support
>>> http://riptano.com
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to