Thanks all! The reason I was thinking of having two keyspaces is that I expect them to evolve at different rates. Our normal column families will change rarely (hopefully never) but our index column families will change whenever we want to query the data in a new way, that isn't supported by the current indexes.
>From what you've all said, it doesn't seem like it's worth it. On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Mark Robson <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: > I can't see any advantage in using multiple keyspaces. It is highly > unlikely that several applications would share the same Cassandra cluster in > any nontrivial deployment. > > Things more important than replication-factor, such as partitioner and ring > token distribution would be compromised by several apps sharing the same > cluster. Moreover, an application which was using Cassandra is likely to > have so much data to store that it can usefully benefit from many dedicated > nodes. > > If you did decide that multiple keyspaces was the right thing to do, your > client tasks can simply maintain several connections to them (if they > individually need >1); this should not be a problem. > > Mark >
