woops was obviously tired, what I said clearly doesn't make sense.
On 10 June 2016 at 14:52, kurt Greaves wrote:
> Sorry, I did mean larger number of rows per partition.
>
> On 9 June 2016 at 10:12, John Thomas wrote:
>
>> The example I gave was for when N=1, if we need to save more values I
>>
Sorry, I did mean larger number of rows per partition.
On 9 June 2016 at 10:12, John Thomas wrote:
> The example I gave was for when N=1, if we need to save more values I
> planned to just add more columns.
>
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 12:51 AM, kurt Greaves
> wrote:
>
>> I would say it's probabl
The example I gave was for when N=1, if we need to save more values I
planned to just add more columns.
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 12:51 AM, kurt Greaves wrote:
> I would say it's probably due to a significantly larger number of
> partitions when using the overwrite method - but really you should be
@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: Interesting use case
I would say it's probably due to a significantly larger number of partitions
when using the overwrite method - but really you should be seeing similar
performance unless one of the schemas ends up generating a lot more disk IO.
If you're planning t
I would say it's probably due to a significantly larger number of
partitions when using the overwrite method - but really you should be
seeing similar performance unless one of the schemas ends up generating a
lot more disk IO.
If you're planning to read the last N values for an event at the same t
