Um, I’m not entirely sure how I misread it, since this was copy-pasted from the document: UPDATE atable SET col = some_function(?) …;
So the document examples certainly seem to support the use of UDF in UPDATE. I suppose the document may be more erroneous in its writing than I in its misreading. Additionally, this statement works in cqlsh (presuming max_int() is a UDF): UPDATE test_table SET data=max_int(3,4) WHERE idx='abc’; So, if the grammar is not supposed to allow this, then there is a bug somewhere because in 3.3 it certainly seems to be parsed and executed without complaint. —Kim From: DuyHai Doan <doanduy...@gmail.com<mailto:doanduy...@gmail.com>> Reply-To: "user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>" <user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>> Date: Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 13:21 To: "user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>" <user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>> Subject: Re: Using User Defined Functions in UPDATE queries You have misread the CQL doc given in the link. According to CQL update grammar it's not possible to use UDF. I see UDF only allowed in select clause...
