> I'm not sure I always
> understand what people mean by "schema less"
> exactly and I'm curious.
For 'schema less', given this -
{{{
cqlsh> use example;
cqlsh:example> CREATE TABLE users (
... user_name varchar,
... password varchar,
... gender varchar,
... session_token varchar,
... state varchar,
... birth_year bigint,
... PRIMARY KEY (user_name)
... );
}}}
I expect this would not cause an unknown identifier error -
{{{
INSERT INTO users
(user_name, password, extra, moar)
VALUES
('bob', 'secret', 'a', 'b');
}}}
but definitions vary.
Bill
On 26/11/12 09:18, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 8:41 AM, aaron morton <aa...@thelastpickle.com
<mailto:aa...@thelastpickle.com>> wrote:
> > Is there any noticeable performance difference between thrift or CQL3?
> Off the top of my head it's within 5% (maybe 10%) under stress tests.
See Eric's talk at the Cassandra SF conference for the exact numbers.
Eric's benchmark results was that "normal" queries were slightly slower
but prepared one (and in real life, I see no good reason not to prepare
statements) were actually slightly faster.
> CQL 3 requires a schema, however altering the schema is easier. And
in 1.2 will support concurrent schema modifications.
> Thrift API is still schema less.
Sorry to hijack this thread, but I'd be curious (like seriously, I'm not
trolling) to understand what you mean by "CQL 3 requires a schema" but
"Thrift API is still schema less". Basically I'm not sure I always
understand what people mean by "schema less" exactly and I'm curious.
--
Sylvain
