What do you mean by, "The included secondary indexes still aren't good at finding keys for ranges of indexed values, such as " name > 'b' and name < 'c' "."?
Do you mean that secondary indexes don't support range queries at all? Besides supporting range queries, I see the importance of secondary indexes as solving the problem of really big indexes, which are almost (if not completely) impossible to write by hand on the client. On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Tyler Hobbs <ty...@riptano.com> wrote: > OPP is not yet obsolete. > > The included secondary indexes still aren't good at finding keys for ranges > of indexed values, such as " name > 'b' and name < 'c' ". This is something > that an OPP index would be good at. Of course, you can do something similar > with one or more rows, so it's not that big of an advantage for OPP. > > If you can make primary indexes useful, you might as well -- no reason to > throw that away. > > The main thing that the secondary index support does is relieve you from > having to write all of the indexing code and CFs by hand. > > - Tyler > > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:23 AM, David Boxenhorn <da...@lookin2.com> wrote: > >> - OPP becomes obsolete (OOP is not obsolete!) >> - primary indexes become obsolete if you ever want to do a range query >> (which you probably will...), better to assign a random row id >> >> Taken together, it's likely that very little will remain of your old >> database schema... >> >> Am I right? >> >> >
