[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-4476?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14233367#comment-14233367
 ] 

Jeremiah Jordan commented on CASSANDRA-4476:
--------------------------------------------

The issue is that you need to be able to keep saying "give me 3 more starting 
from where I left off" and eventually get all of the values.

> Support 2ndary index queries with only inequality clauses (LT, LTE, GT, GTE)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-4476
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-4476
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: API, Core
>            Reporter: Sylvain Lebresne
>            Assignee: Oded Peer
>            Priority: Minor
>              Labels: cql
>             Fix For: 3.0
>
>         Attachments: 4476-2.patch, 4476-3.patch, 4476-5.patch, 
> cassandra-trunk-4476.patch
>
>
> Currently, a query that uses 2ndary indexes must have at least one EQ clause 
> (on an indexed column). Given that indexed CFs are local (and use 
> LocalPartitioner that order the row by the type of the indexed column), we 
> should extend 2ndary indexes to allow querying indexed columns even when no 
> EQ clause is provided.
> As far as I can tell, the main problem to solve for this is to update 
> KeysSearcher.highestSelectivityPredicate(). I.e. how do we estimate the 
> selectivity of non-EQ clauses? I note however that if we can do that estimate 
> reasonably accurately, this might provide better performance even for index 
> queries that both EQ and non-EQ clauses, because some non-EQ clauses may have 
> a much better selectivity than EQ ones (say you index both the user country 
> and birth date, for SELECT * FROM users WHERE country = 'US' AND birthdate > 
> 'Jan 2009' AND birtdate < 'July 2009', you'd better use the birthdate index 
> first).



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to