>
> Though in general I would say that it is worth considering. In
> particular if you have certain data that is accessed a lot more
> frequently than other data (especially if the "other data" is large),
> the improved cache locality of keeping the frequently accessed data
> separate can be high (
>> 4. ) Does the larger no of column families has any impact on the
>> performance(I read about it somewhere)? Should information for a particular
>> row key be split in multiple column families according to the specific query
>> demands or should all data related to a particular row key be kept to
>
> 1. ) If certain columns in a row get mutated too frequently or if new
> columns are added to the row frequently then does the reads of old columns
> that rarely get changed is also affected ? In other words, is the
> performance of reads of almost infrequently changing columns in a row where
>
1. ) If certain columns in a row get mutated too frequently or if new
columns are added to the row frequently then does the reads of old columns
that rarely get changed is also affected ? In other words, is the
performance of reads of almost infrequently changing columns in a row where
some columns
