I'm using the byte ordered partitioner. Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 19, 2013, at 11:26 AM, "Sylvain Lebresne" <sylv...@datastax.com<mailto:sylv...@datastax.com>> wrote: You're using the ordered partitioner, right? On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Davide Anastasia <davide.anasta...@gmail.com<mailto:davide.anasta...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Tyler, I am interested in this scenario as well: could you please elaborate further your answer? Thanks a lot, Davide On 19 Jun 2013 16:01, "Tyler Hobbs" <ty...@datastax.com<mailto:ty...@datastax.com>> wrote: On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Ryan, Brent <br...@cvent.com<mailto:br...@cvent.com>> wrote: CREATE TABLE count3 ( counter text, ts timeuuid, key1 text, value int, PRIMARY KEY ((counter, ts)) ) Instead of doing a composite partition key, remove a set of parens and let ts be your clustering key. That will cause cql rows to be stored in sorted order by the ts column (for a given value of "counter") and allow you to do the kind of query you're looking for. -- Tyler Hobbs DataStax<http://datastax.com/>
