Yes, that is good enough for now. Thanks.
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Watanabe Maki wrote:
> How about to fill zeros before smaller digits?
> Ex. 0001, 0002, etc
>
> maki
>
>
> On 2012/03/17, at 6:29, A J wrote:
>
>> If I define my rowkeys to be Integer
>> (key_validation_class=Inte
if your keys are 1-n and you are using BOP, then almost certainly your
ring will be massively unbalanced with the first node getting clobbered.
You'll have bigger issues than getting lexical ordering.
I'd try to rethink your design so that you don't need BOP.
On 03/16/2012 06:49 PM, Watanabe M
How about to fill zeros before smaller digits?
Ex. 0001, 0002, etc
maki
On 2012/03/17, at 6:29, A J wrote:
> If I define my rowkeys to be Integer
> (key_validation_class=IntegerType) , how can I order the rows
> numerically ?
> ByteOrderedPartitioner orders lexically and retrieval usin
If I define my rowkeys to be Integer
(key_validation_class=IntegerType) , how can I order the rows
numerically ?
ByteOrderedPartitioner orders lexically and retrieval using get_range
does not seem to make sense in order.
If I were to change rowkey to be UTF8 (key_validation_class=UTF8Type),
BOP st
