Tables, yes, but that wasn't the question. The question was around using different keyspaces.
On Thu Nov 13 2014 at 9:17:30 AM Tyler Hobbs <ty...@datastax.com> wrote: > That's not necessarily true. You don't need to split them into separate > keyspaces, but separate tables may have some advantages. For example, in > Cassandra 2.1, compaction and index summary management are optimized based > on read rates for SSTables. If you have different read rates or patterns > for the two types of data, it will confuse/eliminate these optimizations. > > If you have two separate sets of data with (potentially) two separate read > patterns, don't put them in the same table. > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Jonathan Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> > wrote: > >> Performance will be the same. There's no performance benefit to using >> multiple keyspaces. >> >> >> On Thu Nov 13 2014 at 8:42:40 AM Li, George <guangxing...@pearson.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> we use Cassandra to store some association type of data. For example, >>> store user to course (course registrations) association and user to school >>> (school enrollment) association data. The schema for these two types of >>> associations are the same. So there are two options to store the data: >>> 1. Put user to course association data into one keyspace, and user to >>> school association data into another keyspace. >>> 2. Put both of them into the same keyspace. >>> In the long run, such data will grow to be very large. With that in >>> mind, is it better to use the first approach (having multiple keyspaces) >>> for better performance? >>> Thanks. >>> >>> George >>> >> > > > -- > Tyler Hobbs > DataStax <http://datastax.com/> >
