Hi Sylvain and Aaron,
Thanks for the comment Sylvain, what you say makes sense, I have
microsecond precision timestamps and looking at some row printouts I see
everything is happening at a different timestamp which means that it won't
compare the second 100 bytes component.
As for the methodology
Can you post the details of the queries you are running, including the
methodology of the tests ?
(Here is the methodology I used to time queries previously
http://thelastpickle.com/2011/07/04/Cassandra-Query-Plans/)
Cheers
-
Aaron Morton
Freelance Developer
@aaronmorton
htt
happening is that in the first case you do 1 millions comparison of 8
bytes, in the latter you do 1 millions comparison of 100 bytes.
--
Sylvain
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Alexandru Sicoe wrote:
> Sender: adsi...@gmail.com
> Subject: composite query performance depends on compo
Sender: adsi...@gmail.com
Subject: composite query performance depends on component ordering
Message-Id:
Recipient: adam.nicho...@hl.co.uk
__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more
Hi guys,
I am consistently seeing a 20% improvement in query retrieval times if I
use the composite comparator "Timestamp:ID" instead of "ID:Timestamp" where
Timestamp=Long and ID=~100 character strings. I am retrieving all columns
(~1 million) from a single row. Why is this happening?
Cheers,
Al
