On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Tatu Saloranta wrote:
> So if I understand entry correctly, answer is yes, they need to be
> explicitly handled by Cassandra.
> Which means that I would be better off trying to move "cursor"
> (earliest timestamp to consider), with maybe leaving shorter window
> fo
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> Does http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/FAQ#range_ghosts help?
Thank you for quick answer, and apologies for missing this entry.
So if I understand entry correctly, answer is yes, they need to be
explicitly handled by Cassandra.
Which means
Does http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/FAQ#range_ghosts help?
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Tatu Saloranta wrote:
> Quick question: Cassandra documentation explains implementation of
> deletes (using tombstones) quite well.
> But what I was not quite sure about was what actual effects of
> exis
Quick question: Cassandra documentation explains implementation of
deletes (using tombstones) quite well.
But what I was not quite sure about was what actual effects of
existing tombstones might have on doing range queries that would
include those tombstones.
That is: for a use case where new entri
