I would rather be interested in Tree type structure where supercolumns have supercolumns in it..... you dont need to compare all the columns to find a set of columns and will also reduce the bytes transfered for separator, at least string concatenation (Or something like that) for read and write column name generation. it is more logically stored and structured by this way.... and also we can make caching work better by selectively caching the tree (User defined if you will)....
But nothing wrong in supporting both :) Regards, </VJ> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Ed Anuff <e...@anuff.com> wrote: > Follow-up from last weeks discussion, I've been playing around with a > simple column comparator for composite column names that I put up on > github. I'd be interested to hear what people think of this approach. > > http://github.com/edanuff/CassandraCompositeType > > Ed > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Ed Anuff <e...@anuff.com> wrote: > >> It might make sense to create a CompositeType subclass of AbstractType for >> the purpose of constructing and comparing these types of "composite" column >> names so that if you could more easily do that sort of thing rather than >> having to concatenate into one big string. >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Mike Malone <m...@simplegeo.com> wrote: >> >>> The only thing SuperColumns appear to buy you (as someone pointed out to >>> me at the Cassandra meetup - I think it was Eric Florenzano) is that you can >>> use different comparator types for the Super/SubColumns, I guess..? But you >>> should be able to do the same thing by creating your own Column comparator. >>> I guess my point is that SuperColumns are mostly a convenience mechanism, as >>> far as I can tell. >>> >>> Mike >>> >> >> >
