I'd imagine the gossip overhead and key/column per disk limitation is too open for abuse to recommend storing lob columns with any level of predictability, particularly if frequent updates are involved. Would you say it's generally better form to store manifests or file pointers only, and send the physical files on properly replicated distributed filesystems? I've never been sold on lobs even in RDBMS land.
-Michael On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > At least one person is putting in chunks of up to 64MB, so at some > level it "works" but it's not what it's designed for. > > 2010/2/3 Ted Zlatanov <t...@lifelogs.com>: >> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:05:04 -0600 Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> JE> The "atom" in cassandra is a single column. These are almost always >> JE> under 1KB. >> >> Is there any point to storing large objects (over 100MB) in Cassandra >> columns? I'm considering it but it seems like a bad idea based on my >> reading of the source and experience so far. If I could do it it would >> eliminate my need for shared resources (NAS, web server, etc.) to serve >> those objects. >> >> Ted >> >> > -- http://www.x0rz.com http://www.github.com/mjpearson
