Ah, now I understand. Supercolumns it is.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> I don't think you are missing anything. You'll have to pick your poison.
>
> FWIW, if each BAR has relatively few fields then supercolumns aren't
> bad. It's when a BAR has dynamically growing nu
I don't think you are missing anything. You'll have to pick your poison.
FWIW, if each BAR has relatively few fields then supercolumns aren't
bad. It's when a BAR has dynamically growing numbers of fields
(subcolumns) that you get in trouble with that model.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Jon
I'm trying to model a one-to-many set of data in which both sides of the
relation may grow arbitrarily large.
There are arbitrarily many FOOs. For each FOO, there are arbitrarily many
BARs.
Both types are modeled as an object, containing multiple fields (columns) in
the application.
Given a key-add
