> Very few, if any, non-memory databases are likely to be able to "handle" a "million" "rows" in a small number of seconds.
+1 to that. Our data models shy away from really huge sequential reads, so I don't know what to suggest your practical lower bound on response time would be expected to be for a huge clustered sequential read. It's not a particularly well suited question for Cassandra which does have practical limits on partition size far short of its theoretical limits. On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Robert Coli <rc...@eventbrite.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Mehak Mehta <meme...@cs.stonybrook.edu> > wrote: > >> I have tried with fetch size of 10000 still its not giving any results. >> My expectations were that Cassandra can handle a million rows easily. >> > > Very few, if any, non-memory databases are likely to be able to "handle" a > "million" "rows" in a small number of seconds. > > The default timeouts for Cassandra operations are in the order of small > (in some cases single) numbers of seconds. > > This very strongly suggests that the operation you are trying to do, and > design you are exploring, is not inherently very "Cassandric." :D > > =Rob > >
