I just kept both row keys the same. This was very trivial for fetching them
both. When you have A, you can fetch B, and vice versa.
2012/2/4 Yiming Sun <yiming....@gmail.com>
> Interesting idea, R.V. But what did you do with the row keys?
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 2:29 PM, R. Verlangen <ro...@us2.nl> wrote:
>
>> I also made something like this a while ago. I decided to go for the
>> 2-rows-solution: by doing that you don't have the need for super columns.
>> Cassandra is really good at reading, so this should not be an issue.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>>
>> 2012/2/4 Yiming Sun <yiming....@gmail.com>
>>
>>> Thanks Andrey and Chris. It sounds like we don't necessarily have to
>>> use composite columns. From what I understand about dynamic CF, each row
>>> may have completely different data from other rows; but in our case, the
>>> data in each row is similar to other rows; my concern was more about the
>>> homogeneity of the data between columns.
>>>
>>> In our original supercolumn-based schema, one special supercolumn is
>>> called "metadata" which contains a number of subcolumns to hold metadata
>>> describing each collection (e.g. number of documents, etc.), then the rest
>>> of the supercolumns in the same row are all IDs of documents belong to the
>>> collection, and for each document supercolumn, the subcolumns contain the
>>> document content as well as metadata on individual document (e.g. checksum
>>> of each document).
>>>
>>> To move away from the supercolumn schema, I could either create two CFs,
>>> one to hold metadata, the other document content; or I could create just
>>> one CF mixing metadata and doc content in the same row, and using composite
>>> column names to identify if the particular column is metadata or a
>>> document. I am just wondering if you have any inputs on the pros and cons
>>> of each schema.
>>>
>>> -- Y.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Chris Gerken <
>>> chrisger...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4 February 2012 06:21, Yiming Sun <yiming....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I cannot have one composite column name with 3 components while
>>>>> another with 4 components?
>>>>
>>>> Just put 4 components and left last empty (if it is same type)?!
>>>>
>>>> Another question I have is how flexible composite columns actually are.
>>>>> If my data model has a CF containing US zip codes with the following
>>>>> composite columns:
>>>>>
>>>>> {OH:Spring Field} : 45503
>>>>> {OH:Columbus} : 43085
>>>>> {FL:Spring Field} : 32401
>>>>> {FL:Key West} : 33040
>>>>>
>>>>> I know I can ask cassandra to "give me the zip codes of all cities in
>>>>> OH". But can I ask it to "give me the zip codes of all cities named
>>>>> Spring
>>>>> Field" using this model? Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>> No. You set first composite component at first.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd use a dynamic CF:
>>>> row key = state abbreviation
>>>> column name = city name
>>>> column value = zip code (or a complex object, one of whose properties
>>>> is zip code)
>>>>
>>>> you can iterate over the columns in a single row to get a state's city
>>>> names and their zip code and you can do a get_range_slices on all keys for
>>>> the columns starting and ending on the city name to find out the zip codes
>>>> for a cities with the given name.
>>>>
>>>> I think
>>>>
>>>> - Chris
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
