+1 use them if you can. Also you can reverse the sort order on components in the type, that can make some common queries faster.
Cheers ----------------- Aaron Morton Freelance Developer @aaronmorton http://www.thelastpickle.com On 21/12/2011, at 9:49 AM, Guy Incognito wrote: > afaik composite lets you do sorting in a way that would be > difficult/impossible with string concatenation. > > eg <String, Integer> with the string ascending, and the integer descending. > > if i had composites available (which i don't b/c we are on 0.7), i would use > them over string concatenation. string concatenation is a pain. > > On 20/12/2011 20:33, Maxim Potekhin wrote: >> >> Thank you Aaron! As long as I have plain strings, would you say that I would >> do almost as well with catenation? >> >> Of course I realize that mixed types are a very different case where the >> composite is very useful. >> >> Thanks >> >> Maxim >> >> >> On 12/20/2011 2:44 PM, aaron morton wrote: >>> >>> Component values are compared in a type aware fashion, an Integer is an >>> Integer. Not a 10 character zero padded string. >>> >>> You can also slice on the components. Just like with string concat, but >>> nicer. . e.g. If you app is storing comments for a thing, and the column >>> names have the form <comment_id, field> or <Integer, String> you can slice >>> for all properties of a comment or all properties for comments between two >>> comment_id's >>> >>> Finally, the client library knows what's going on. >>> >>> Hope that helps. >>> >>> ----------------- >>> Aaron Morton >>> Freelance Developer >>> @aaronmorton >>> http://www.thelastpickle.com >>> >>> On 21/12/2011, at 7:43 AM, Maxim Potekhin wrote: >>> >>>> With regards to static, what are major benefits as it compares with >>>> string catenation (with some convenient separator inserted)? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Maxim >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/20/2011 1:39 PM, Richard Low wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Ertio Lew<ertio...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> With regard to the composite columns stuff in Cassandra, I have the >>>>>> following doubts : >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. What is the storage overhead of the composite type column >>>>>> names/values, >>>>> The values are the same. For each dimension, there is 3 bytes overhead. >>>>> >>>>>> 2. what exactly is the difference between the DynamicComposite and Static >>>>>> Composite ? >>>>> Static composite type has the types of each dimension specified in the >>>>> column family definition, so all names within that column family have >>>>> the same type. Dynamic composite type lets you specify the type for >>>>> each column, so they can be different. There is extra storage >>>>> overhead for this and care must be taken to ensure all column names >>>>> remain comparable. >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
