Don't static columns get you what you want? http://www.datastax.com/documentation/cql/3.1/cql/cql_reference/refStaticCol.html On Dec 22, 2014 10:50 PM, "David Broyles" <sj.clim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Although I used Cassandra 1.0.X extensively, I'm new to CQL3. Pages such > as http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/ClientOptionsThrift suggest new > projects should use CQL3. > > I'm wondering, however, if there are certain use cases not well covered by > CQL3. Consider the standard timeseries example: > > CREATE TABLE timeseries ( > event_type text, > insertion_time timestamp, > event blob, > PRIMARY KEY (event_type, insertion_time) > ) WITH CLUSTERING ORDER BY (insertion_time DESC); > > What happens if I want to store additional information that is shared by > all events in the given series (but that I don't want to include in the row > ID): e.g. the event source, a cached count of the number of events logged > to date, etc.? I might try updating the definition as follows: > > CREATE TABLE timeseries ( > event_type text, > event_source text, > total_events int, > insertion_time timestamp, > event blob, > PRIMARY KEY (event_type, event_source, total_events, insertion_time) > ) WITH CLUSTERING ORDER BY (insertion_time DESC); > > Is this not inefficient? When inserting or querying via CQL3, say in > batches of up to 1000 events, won't the type/source/count be repeated 1000 > times? Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding something, or if I > should be sticking to Thrift for situations like this involving mixed > static/dynamic data. > > Thanks! >
