Would you stand by that statement in case all colums inside the super column need to be read? Why?
Thanks Le 28 déc. 2011 19:26, "Edward Capriolo" <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> a écrit : > Super columns have the same fundamental problem and perform worse in > general. So switching from composites to super columns is NEVER a good idea. > > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Aditya <ady...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Since I have around 20 items to query, I guess making 20 queries to >> retrieve activities by all followies on all of those 20 columns would too >> inefficient, so to take the advantage of more efficient queries, are >> supercolumns recommended for this case ? Anyways, in case I use >> supercolumns, I need to retrieve the entire supercolumn at any point of >> time & I am writing subcolumn(s) to the supercolumn at different times not >> at once. >> >> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Edward Capriolo >> <edlinuxg...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> You need to execute one get slice operation for each item id or if the >>> row is not large , you can try one large get slice on the entire row and >>> deal with the results client side. >>> >>> If you try method 1 When doing slices on composites you can set the >>> start inclusive or exclusive values to get only the column you want and not >>> some extra columns up to slice range size. >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, December 27, 2011, Aditya <ady...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > I need to store data of all activities by user's followies in single >>> row. I am trying to do that making use of composite column names in a >>> single user specific row named 'rowX'. >>> > On any activity by a user's followie on an item, a column is stored in >>> 'rowX'. The column has a composite type column name made up of >>> itemId+userId (which makes it unique col. name) in rowX. (& column value >>> contains the activity data related to that item by that followie) >>> > >>> > Now I want to retrieve activity by all users on a list of items. So I >>> need to retrieve all composite columns with composite's first component >>> matching the itemId. Is it possible to do such a query to Cassandra ? I am >>> using Hector. >>> >> >> >
