Would be interested in your findings, Patrik! ... I too was searching for something similar a few days back.. for column names that contained userIds of users on my application. UUIDs that seemed to be most widely recognized(perhaps!) solution are 16 bytes but those definitely seem like a too much for the heavy denormalized databases. It definitely makes sense to attempt to reduce the size as storage may although be cheap but you also need to cache your data, so (I guess) reduction in the size of your column names, ids etc could actually matter a lot depending on the size of your actual data/column values.
I was suggested by some people here, to try out solutions like Zookeeper or snowflake, to generate sequential ids, that could be used as alternative for UUIDs in some cases. Regards Asil On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Patrik Modesto <patrik.mode...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all! > > I'm thinking if size of a column name could matter for a large dataset > in Cassandra (I mean lots of rows). For example what if I have a row > with 10 columns each has 10 bytes value and 10 bytes name. Do I have > half the row size just of the column names and the other half of the > data (not counting storage overhead)? What if I have 10M of these > rows? Is there a difference? Should I use some 3bytes codes for a > column name to save memory/bandwidth? > > Thanks, > Patrik >
