That is correct. Another place where the mistakes of Thrift informed our development of the native protocol.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Keith Wright <kwri...@nanigans.com> wrote: > Does this whole true for the native protocol? I've noticed that you can > create a session object in the datastax driver without specifying a keyspace > and so long as you include the keyspace in all queries instead of just table > name, it works fine. In that case, I assume there's only one connection > pool for all keyspaces. > > From: Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> > Reply-To: "user@cassandra.apache.org" <user@cassandra.apache.org> > Date: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 at 11:05 AM > To: "user@cassandra.apache.org" <user@cassandra.apache.org> > Subject: Re: How expensive are additional keyspaces? > > The biggest expense of them is that you need to be authenticated to a > keyspace to perform and operation. Thus connection pools are bound to > keyspaces. Switching a keyspace is an RPC operation. In the thrift client, > If you have 100 keyspaces you need 100 connection pools that starts to be a > pain very quickly. > > I suggest keeping everything in one keyspace unless you really need > different replication factors and or network replication settings per > keyspace. > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Martin Meyer <elreydet...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Hey all - >> >> My company is working on introducing a configuration service system to >> provide cofig data to several of our applications, to be backed by >> Cassandra. We're already using Cassandra for other services, and at >> the moment our pending design just puts all the new tables (9 of them, >> I believe) in one of our pre-existing keyspaces. >> >> I've got a few questions about keyspaces that I'm hoping for input on. >> Some Google hunting didn't turn up obvious answers, at least not for >> recent versions of Cassandra. >> >> 1) What trade offs are being made by using a new keyspace versus >> re-purposing an existing one (that is in active use by another >> application)? Organization is the obvious answer, I'm looking for any >> technical reasons. >> >> 2) Is there any per-keyspace overhead incurred by the cluster? >> >> 3) Does it impact on-disk layout at all for tables to be in a >> different keyspace from others? Is any sort of file fragmentation >> potentially introduced just by doing this in a new keyspace as opposed >> to an exiting one? >> >> 4) Does it add any metadata overhead to the system keyspace? >> >> 5) Why might we *not* want to make a separate keyspace for this? >> >> 6) Does anyone have experience with creating additional keyspaces to >> the point that Cassandra can no longer handle it? Note that we're >> *not* planning to do this, I'm just curious. >> >> Cheers, >> Martin > > -- Jonathan Ellis Project Chair, Apache Cassandra co-founder, http://www.datastax.com @spyced
