Yes that makes more sense. But the problem is I can't use secondary
indexing "where int25=5", while with normal columns I can.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:23 PM, sfesc...@gmail.com <sfesc...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I agree a single blob would also work (I do that in some cases). The
> reason for the map is if you need more flexible updating. I think your
> solution of a map/data type works well.
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:10 AM DuyHai Doan <doanduy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "But I need rows together to work with them (indexing etc)"
>>
>> What do you mean rows together ? You mean that you want to fetch a single
>> row instead of 1 row per property right ?
>>
>> In this case, the map might be the solution:
>>
>> CREATE TABLE generic_with_maps(
>> object_id uuid
>> boolean_map map<text, boolean>
>> text_map map<text, text>
>> long_map map<text, long>,
>> ...
>> PRIMARY KEY(object_id)
>> );
>>
>> The trick here is to store all the fields of the object in different map,
>> depending on the type of the field.
>>
>> The map key is always text and it contains the name of the field.
>>
>> Example
>>
>> {
>> "id": xxxx,
>> "name": "John DOE",
>> "age": 32,
>> "last_visited_date": "2016-09-10 12:01:03",
>> }
>>
>> INSERT INTO generic_with_maps(id, map_text, map_long, map_date)
>> VALUES(xxx, {'name': 'John DOE'}, {'age': 32}, {'last_visited_date':
>> '2016-09-10
>> 12:01:03'});
>>
>> When you do a select, you'll get a SINGLE row returned. But then you need
>> to extract all the properties from different maps, not a big deal
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Dorian Hoxha <dorian.ho...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> @DuyHai
>>> Yes, that's another case, the "entity" model used in rdbms. But I need
>>> rows together to work with them (indexing etc).
>>>
>>> @sfespace
>>> The map is needed when you have a dynamic schema. I don't have a dynamic
>>> schema (may have, and will use the map if I do). I just have thousands of
>>> schemas. One user needs 10 integers, while another user needs 20 booleans,
>>> and another needs 30 integers, or a combination of them all.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 7:46 PM, DuyHai Doan <doanduy...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Another possible alternative is to use a single map column"
>>>>
>>>> --> how do you manage the different types then ? Because maps in
>>>> Cassandra are strongly typed
>>>>
>>>> Unless you set the type of map value to blob, in this case you might as
>>>> well store all the object as a single blob column
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:13 PM, sfesc...@gmail.com <sfesc...@gmail.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Another possible alternative is to use a single map column.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 7:19 AM Dorian Hoxha <dorian.ho...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since I will only have 1 table with that many columns, and the other
>>>>>> tables will be "normal" tables with max 30 columns, and the memory of 2K
>>>>>> columns won't be that big, I'm gonna guess I'll be fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The data model is too dynamic, the alternative would be to create a
>>>>>> table for each user which will have even more overhead since the number
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> users is in the several thousands/millions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:04 PM, DuyHai Doan <doanduy...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no real limit in term of number of columns in a table, I
>>>>>>> would say that the impact of having a lot of columns is the amount of
>>>>>>> meta
>>>>>>> data C* needs to keep in memory for encoding/decoding each row.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, if you have a table with 1000+ columns, the problem is probably
>>>>>>> your data model...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Dorian Hoxha <
>>>>>>> dorian.ho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is there alot of overhead with having a big number of columns in a
>>>>>>>> table ? Not unbounded, but say, would 2000 be a problem(I think that's
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> maximum I'll need) ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank You
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
