You certainly have plenty of freedom to trade off size vs access granularity using multiple blobs. It really depends on how mutable the data is, how you intend to read it, whether it is highly sparse and or highly dense (in which case you perhaps don’t need to store every bit) etc.
On Oct 6, 2014, at 3:56 PM, DuyHai Doan <doanduy...@gmail.com> wrote: > Isn't there a video of Ooyala at some past Cassandra Summit demonstrating > usage of Cassandra for text search using Trigram ? AFAIK they were storing > kind of bitmap to perform OR & AND operations on trigram > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Russell Bradberry <rbradbe...@gmail.com> > wrote: > I highly recommend against storing data structures like this in C*. That > really isn't it's sweet spot. For instance, if you were to use the blob type > which will give you the smallest size, you are still looking at a cell size > of (90,000,000/8/1024) = 10,986 or over 10MB in size, which is prohibitively > large. > > Additionally, there is no way to modify the bitmap in place, you would have > to read the entire structure out and write it back in. > > You could store one bit per cell, but that would essentially defeat the > purpose of the bitmap's compact size. > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Eduardo Cusa > <eduardo.c...@usmediaconsulting.com> wrote: > Hi Guys, what data type recommend to store bitmaps? > I am planning to store maps of 90,000,000 length and then query by key. > > Example: > > key : 22_ES > bitmap : 101011111101010111010101011........ > > > > Thanks > Eduardo > > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
