(a) cassandra does not use update-in-place storage so doing the update as part of the get call isn't much of an efficiency gain (b) I don't think it's a common enough use case to warrant special treatment
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Omer van der Horst Jansen <ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > We have an application that stores session data in Cassandra. The > session data needs to be deleted after, say, one hour of inactivity. The > CASSANDRA-699 TTL update in 0.7 looks like it will work very well for > that. > > However, we have a few scenarios where some session data will be > retrieved frequently, but not be updated at all. In that scenario we > need to make sure that the TTL gets refreshed on each read. I'm > currently handling this by rewriting the entire column with a new > timestamp and TTL. > > That seems a bit inefficient. Sometimes the column data can be several > megabytes in size, and the only things in the column that need to be > updated are the timestamp and the TTL. > > Is there currently a way to just update the timestamp and TTL? If not, > would it make sense to update the get method and the associated internal > plumbing to allow for an optional TTL parameter? > > -Omer > -- Jonathan Ellis Project Chair, Apache Cassandra co-founder of Riptano, the source for professional Cassandra support http://riptano.com
