On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Owen Kim <ohech...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sigh, it is a bit grating. I (genuinely) appreciate your acknowledgement > of that. Though, I didn't intend for the question to be "about" > supercolumns. >
(Yep, understand tho that if you hadn't been told that advice before, it would grate a lot less. I will try to remember that "Owen Kim" has received this piece of info, and will do my best to not repeat it to you... :D) > It is possible I'm hitting an odd edge case though I'm having trouble > reproducing the issue in a controlled environment since there seems to be a > timing element to it, or at least it's not consistently happening. I > haven't been able to reproduce it on a single node test cluster. I'm moving > on to test a larger one now. > Right, my hypothesis is that there is something within the supercolumn write path which differs from the non-supercolumn write path. In theory this should be less possible since the 1.2 era supercolumn rewrite. To be clear, are you reading back via PK? No secondary indexes involved, right? The only bells your symptoms are ringing are secondary index bugs... =Rob
