But if we look at thrift world "batch_mutate" then it used to perform all mutations withing partition key atomically without using CAS i.e no extra penalty. Does this mean CQL degrades in performance as compared to thrift if we want to do multiple updates to a partition key atomically?
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Vivek Mishra <mishra.v...@gmail.com> wrote: > AFAIK, it is not. With CAS it should br > On 26/08/2014 10:21 pm, "Jaydeep Chovatia" <chovatia.jayd...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I have question on inserting multiple cluster keys under same partition >> key. >> >> Ex: >> >> CREATE TABLE Employee ( >> deptId int, >> empId int, >> name varchar, >> address varchar, >> salary int, >> PRIMARY KEY(deptId, empId) >> ); >> >> BEGIN *UNLOGGED *BATCH >> INSERT INTO Employee (deptId, empId, name, address, salary) VALUES (1, >> 10, 'testNameA', 'testAddressA', 20000); >> INSERT INTO Employee (deptId, empId, name, address, salary) VALUES (1, >> 20, 'testNameB', 'testAddressB', 30000); >> APPLY BATCH; >> >> Here we are inserting two cluster keys (10 and 20) under same partition >> key (1). >> Q1) Is this batch transaction atomic and isolated? If yes then is there >> any performance overhead with this syntax? >> Q2) Is this CQL syntax can be considered equivalent of Thrift >> "batch_mutate"? >> >> -jaydeep >> >
