It sounds some something that's only useful in a really limited use case. In
an 11 node cluster it would be quorum reads / writes would need to come from 6
nodes. It would probably be much slower for both reads & writes.
It sounds like what you want is a database with replication, not partitioning.
On Sep 13, 2013, at 11:15 AM, "Hiller, Dean" <dean.hil...@nrel.gov> wrote:
> When I add nodes though, I would kind of be screwed there, right? Is there
> an RF=${nodecount}…that would be neat.
>
> Dean
>
> From: Robert Coli <rc...@eventbrite.com<mailto:rc...@eventbrite.com>>
> Reply-To: "user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>"
> <user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>>
> Date: Friday, September 13, 2013 12:06 PM
> To: "user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>"
> <user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>>
> Subject: Re: is there any type of table existing on all nodes(slow to up
> date, fast to read in map/reduce)?
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Hiller, Dean
> <dean.hil...@nrel.gov<mailto:dean.hil...@nrel.gov>> wrote:
> I was just wondering if cassandra had any special CF that every row exists on
> every node for smaller tables that we would want to leverage in map/reduce.
> The table row count is less than 500k and we are ok with slow updates to the
> table, but this would make M/R blazingly fast since for every row, we read
> into this table.
>
> Create a keyspace with replication configured such that RF=N?
>
> =Rob
