This is indeed intended. That behavior is largely dictated by how the storage engine works, and the fact that an update does no read internally in particular.
Yet, what I do not know is whether this behavior can be changed somehow to > let the initial TTL, > There's nothing like that supported, no. You have to read the value first to get his TTL and then insert whatever update you want with the TTL you've just fetch. And since we don't have a good way to do it much more efficiently than server side, we prefer not doing it. That way the performance impact is very explicit. -- Sylvain > > Alain > > > 2013/4/26 Shahryar Sedghi <shsed...@gmail.com> > >> Apparently when I update a column using CQL that already has a TTL, it >> resets the TTL to null, so if there was already a TTL for all columns that >> I inserted part of a composite column set, this specific column that I >> updated will not expire while the others are are getting expired. Is it how >> it is expected to work or it is a bug? >> >> Thanks in advance >> >> Shahryar >> >> >> >
