Hey Nate! What I wanted to do with the get_range_slice was to receive the keys in the inverted order, so that I could so offset limit queries on key ranges in reverse order. Like you said, this can be done for both columns and super columns with help of the SliceRange, but not on keys afaik, but maybe there is a way?
Thanks Erik On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Nathan McCall <n...@vervewireless.com>wrote: > Erik, > You can do an inverse with 'reversed=true' in SliceRange as part of > the SlicePredicate for both get_slice or get_range_slice. I have not > tried reverse=true on SuperColumn results, but I dont think there is > any difference there - what can't be changed is how things are ordered > but direction can go either way (If I am wrong on this, somebody > please correct me). > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-598 has not been on my > radar as I dont have anything reporting-ish like you describe with > SuperColumns (yet). I will defer to more experienced folks with this. > > Regards, > -Nate > > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Erik Holstad <erikhols...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > @Nathan > > So what I'm planning to do is to store multiple sort orders for the same > > data, where they all use the > > same data table just fetches it in different orders, so to say. I want to > be > > able to rad the different sort > > orders from the front and from the back to get both regular and reverse > sort > > order. > > > > With your approach using super columns you would need to replicate all > data, > > right? > > > > And if I understand http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-598 > > correctly you would need to > > read the whole thing before you can limit the results handed back to you. > > > > In regards to the two calls get_slice and get_range_slice, the way I > > understand it is that you hand > > the second one an optional start and stop key plus a limit, to get a > range > > of keys/rows. I was planning > > to use this call together with the OPP, but are thinking about not using > it > > since there is no way to do > > an inverse scan, right? > > > > Thanks a lot > > Erik > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Jesse McConnell < > jesse.mcconn...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> infinite is a bit of a bold claim.... > >> > >> by my understanding you are bound by the memory of the jvm as all of > >> the content of a key/row currently needs to fit in memory for > >> compaction, which includes columns and supercolumns for given key/row. > >> > >> if you are going to run into those scenarios then some sort of > >> sharding on the keys is required, afaict > >> > >> cheers, > >> jesse > >> > >> -- > >> jesse mcconnell > >> jesse.mcconn...@gmail.com > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 16:30, Nathan McCall <n...@vervewireless.com> > >> wrote: > >> > Erik, > >> > Sure, you could and depending on the workload, that might be quite > >> > efficient for small pieces of data. However, this also sounds like > >> > something that might be better addressed with the addition of a > >> > SuperColumn on "Sorts" and getting rid of "Data" altogether: > >> > > >> > Sorts : { > >> > sort_row_1 : { > >> > sortKey1 : { col1:val1, col2:val2 }, > >> > sortKey2 : { col1:val3, col2:val4 } > >> > } > >> > } > >> > > >> > You can have an infinite number of SuperColumns for a key, but make > >> > sure you understand get_slice vs. get_range_slice before you commit to > >> > a design. Hopefully I understood your example correctly, if not, do > >> > you have anything more concrete? > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > -Nate > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Erik Holstad <erikhols...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> >> Thanks Nate for the example. > >> >> > >> >> I was thinking more a long the lines of something like: > >> >> > >> >> If you have a family > >> >> > >> >> Data : { > >> >> row1 : { > >> >> col1:val1, > >> >> row2 : { > >> >> col1:val2, > >> >> ... > >> >> } > >> >> } > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Using > >> >> Sorts : { > >> >> sort_row : { > >> >> sortKey1_datarow1: [], > >> >> sortKey2_datarow2: [] > >> >> } > >> >> } > >> >> > >> >> Instead of > >> >> Sorts : { > >> >> sort_row : { > >> >> sortKey1: datarow1, > >> >> sortKey2: datarow2 > >> >> } > >> >> } > >> >> > >> >> If that makes any sense? > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Regards Erik > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards Erik > > > -- Regards Erik
