hmm....not sure I understand. Are you saying the way 'batch mutate' is coded, the order of writes in the batch does not mean anything ? You can ask the batch to do A,B,C and then D in sequence; but sometimes Cassandra can end up applying just C and A,B (and D) may still not be applied ?
Thanks. On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:37 AM, aaron morton <aa...@thelastpickle.com> wrote: > It may, but it would not be guaranteed. > > Cheers > > ----------------- > Aaron Morton > Freelance Developer > @aaronmorton > http://www.thelastpickle.com > > On 14/03/2012, at 8:11 AM, A J wrote: > > I know batch operations are not atomic but does the success of a write > imply all writes preceeding it in the batch were successful ? > > For example, using cql: > BEGIN BATCH USING CONSISTENCY QUORUM AND TTL 8640000 > INSERT INTO users (KEY, password, name) VALUES ('user2', > 'ch@ngem3b', 'second user') > UPDATE users SET password = 'ps22dhds' WHERE KEY = 'user2' > INSERT INTO users (KEY, password) VALUES ('user3', 'ch@ngem3c') > DELETE name FROM users WHERE key = 'user2' > INSERT INTO users (KEY, password, name) VALUES ('user4', > 'ch@ngem3c', 'Andrew') > APPLY BATCH; > > Say the batch failed but I see that the third write was present on a > node. Does it imply that the first insert and the second update > definitely made to that node as well ? > > Thanks. > >
