I was given one other suggestion (which may have been suggested earlier in
this thread, but is clearer to me with an example). The suggestion was to
use composite columns and have the first part of the key name be "skill"
and the second part be the specific skill and then store a null value. I
hope I understood this suggestion correctly.
user: {
'name': 'ben',
'title': 'software engineer',
'company': 'google',
'location': 'orange county',
'skill:java': '',
'skill:html': '',
'skill:javascript': ''
}
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:04 AM, samal <samalgo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> YEAH! agree, it only matter for time bucket data.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:31 PM, R. Verlangen <ro...@us2.nl> wrote:
>
>> That's true, but it does not sound like a real problem to me.. Maybe
>> someone else can shed some light upon this.
>>
>>
>> 2012/3/27 samal <samalgo...@gmail.com>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:47 AM, R. Verlangen <ro...@us2.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>> " but any schema change will break it "
>>>>
>>>> How do you mean? You don't have to specify the columns in Cassandra so
>>>> it should work perfect. Except for the "skill~" is preserverd for your
>>>> list.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In case skill~ is decided to change to skill:: , it need to be handle
>>> at app level. Or otherwise had t update in all row, read it first, modify
>>> it, insert new version and delete old version.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> With kind regards,
>>
>> Robin Verlangen
>> www.robinverlangen.nl
>>
>>
>
