In 3.0, clustering columns are not actually part of the column name anymore. Yay. Aaron Morton wrote a detailed analysis of the 3.x storage engine here: http://thelastpickle.com/blog/2016/03/04/introductiont-to-the-apache-cassandra-3-storage-engine.html <http://thelastpickle.com/blog/2016/03/04/introductiont-to-the-apache-cassandra-3-storage-engine.html>
The advantage of maps is a single table that can contain a very flexible data model, of maps and sets all in the same table. Fun times. The advantage of using clustering keys is performance and you can use WAY more K/V pairs. Jon > On Nov 15, 2017, at 8:12 AM, eugene miretsky <eugene.miret...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > > What would be the tradeoffs between using > > 1) Map > > ( > id UUID PRIMARY KEY, > myMap map<int,text> > ); > > 2) Clustering key > > ( > id UUID PRIMARY KEY, > key int, > val text, > PRIMARY KEY (id, key)) > ); > > My understanding is that maps are stored very similarly to clustering > columns, where the map key is part of the SSTable's column name. The main > difference seems to be that with maps all the key/value pairs get retrieved > together, while with clustering keys we can retrieve individual rows, or a > range of keys. > > Cheers, > Eugene
