Yeah, except I guess there's a minor debate left on whether it'd be more performant to store the labels in their own table, and do a read query each time when the parent item is fetched.
Or if they should be kept as a set<label> on the parent item and take the penalty when updating / deleting labels. (Which will be rare, by the way.) On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:38 PM, DuyHai Doan <doanduy...@gmail.com> wrote: > So problem solved! > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Ali Akhtar <ali.rac...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Yeah, I am using set<label> (not set<text> though) >> >> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:36 PM, DuyHai Doan <doanduy...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Yes you'd have to know the UDT values since it's part of the primary key >>> to query your data. >>> >>> If I were you I would stick to using a set<text> and use UPDATE my_table >>> SET labels = labels + <new_label>; >>> >>> It does work well with concurrent updates. >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Ali Akhtar <ali.rac...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> But then how would you query it? You'd need to know all the values of >>>> the udt, right? >>>> >>>> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:30 PM, DuyHai Doan <doanduy...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Also can you make a UDT a clustered key?" --> yes if it's frozen >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Ali Akhtar <ali.rac...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> If I wanted to get all values for an item, including its labels, how >>>>>> would that be done in the above case? >>>>>> >>>>>> Also can you make a UDT a clustered key? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 4:33 AM, Manoj Khangaonkar < >>>>>> khangaon...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Instead of using a collection, consider making label a clustered >>>>>>> column. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With this each request will essentially append a column (label) to >>>>>>> the partition. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To get all labels would be a simple query >>>>>>> >>>>>>> select label from table where partitionkey = "value". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In general , read + update of a column is an anti pattern in >>>>>>> cassandra - which is what you are doing. What I suggesting >>>>>>> above is appending more columns and not updating existing columns. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Ali Akhtar <ali.rac...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have a table where each record contains a list<string> of labels. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have an endpoint which responds to new labels being added to a >>>>>>>> record by the user. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Consider the following scenario: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Record X, labels = [] >>>>>>>> - User selects 2 labels, clicks a button, and 2 http requests are >>>>>>>> generated. >>>>>>>> - The server receives request for Label 1 and Label 2 at the same >>>>>>>> time. >>>>>>>> - Both requests see the labels as empty, add 1 label to the >>>>>>>> collection, and send it. >>>>>>>> - Record state as label 1 request sees it: [1], as label 2 sees it: >>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How will the above conflict be resolved? What can I do so I end up >>>>>>>> with [1, 2] instead of either [1] or [2] after both requests have been >>>>>>>> processed? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> http://khangaonkar.blogspot.com/ >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
