I have seen this question pop up once or twice in mailing lists regarding
atomicity when using batch_mutate() operations. I understand that the
operations in batch_mutate() should be idempotent and do not get rolled back
on failures. However, a client crashing (due to machine issues, networking
iss
(you could pack all the data you need into a structure
like JSON )
>
> CF's have a (potentially) large memory overhead. Use fewer and store mixed
but related content in them.
>
> Hope that helps.
> Aaron
>
>
> On 26 Mar 2011, at 05:38, Saurabh Sehgal wrote
r, the "rollup" process itself is something that I am not sure on how
to achieve. Any suggestions ? Any input is greatly appreciated.
Thank you,
Saurabh
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Saurabh Sehgal wrote:
> Thanks for all the responses.
>
> My leading questions
Thanks for all the responses.
My leading questions then are ->
- Should I go with the OrderPreservingPartitioner based on timestamps so I
can do time range queries - is this recommended ? any special cases
regarding load balancing I need to keep in mind ? I have read buzz over
blogs/forums on how
Hi All,
I am evaluating Cassandra as a data store for my application.
This is what the format of the data I want to store looks like:
{
timestampuuid: unique time stamp
finite_set_of_values_attribute1: this is a value from a finite set ,
lets say {a,b,c,d}
finite_set_of_values_attribut
