@Stephan: in that case, you can easily tell the names of all columns you want to retrieve, so you can make a query to retrieve those list of composite columns.
@Jeremiah, So where is my best bet ? Should I leave the supercolumns as it is as of now, since I can find a good way to use them incase I replace them with composite columns? On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:01 AM, Stephen Pope <stephen.p...@quest.com> wrote: > The bonus you're talking about here, how do I apply that? > > For example, my columns are in the form of number.id such as 4.steve, > 4.greg, 5.steve, 5.george. Is there a way to query a slice of numbers with > a list of ids? As in, I want all the columns with numbers between 4 and 10 > which have ids steve or greg. > > Cheers, > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremiah Jordan [mailto:jeremiah.jor...@morningstar.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 3:12 PM > To: user@cassandra.apache.org > Cc: Asil Klin > Subject: Re: Replacing supercolumns with composite columns; Getting the > equivalent of retrieving a list of supercolumns by name > > The main issue with replacing super columns with composite columns right > now is that if you don't know all your sub-column names you can't select > multiple "super columns" worth of data in the same query without getting > extra stuff. You have to use a slice to get all subcolumns of a given > super column, and you can't have disjoint slices, so if you want two super > columns full, you have to get all the other stuff that is in between them, > or make two queries. > If you know what all of the sub-column names are you can ask for all of > the super/sub column pairs for all of the super columns you want and not > get extra data. > > If you don't need to pull multiple super columns at a time with slices > like that, then there isn't really an issue. > > A bonus of using composite keys like this, is that if there is a specific > sub column you want from multiple super columns, you can pull all those out > with a single multiget and you don't have to pull the rest of the columns... > > So there are pros and cons... > > -Jeremiah > > > On 01/03/2012 01:58 PM, Asil Klin wrote: > > I have a super columns family which I always use to retrieve a list of > > supercolumns(with all subcolumns) by name. I am looking forward to > > replace all SuperColumns in my schema with the composite columns. > > > > How could I design schema so that I could do the equivalent of > > retrieving a list of supercolumns by name, in case of using composite > > columns. > > > > (As of now I thought of using the supercolumn name as the first > > component of the composite name and the subcolumn name as 2nd > > component of composite name.) >
