[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7855?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14296584#comment-14296584 ]
Benjamin Lerer commented on CASSANDRA-7855: ------------------------------------------- {quote} I would argue that the syntax should always have the following format. {code}SELECT * FROM foo WHERE (k1, k2) IN ( (0, 1) , (1, 2) ){code} {quote} I disagree. This is something different from the problem described. CASSANDRA-7854 seems to be a different problem than this one. I will reopen it. > Genralize use of IN for compound partition keys > ----------------------------------------------- > > Key: CASSANDRA-7855 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7855 > Project: Cassandra > Issue Type: Improvement > Reporter: Sylvain Lebresne > Assignee: Benjamin Lerer > Priority: Minor > Labels: cql > Fix For: 2.1.3 > > > When you have a compount partition key, we currently only support to have a > {{IN}} on the last column of that partition key. So given: > {noformat} > CREATE TABLE foo ( > k1 int, > k2 int, > v int, > PRIMARY KEY ((k1, k2)) > ) > {noformat} > we allow > {noformat} > SELECT * FROM foo WHERE k1 = 0 AND k2 IN (1, 2) > {noformat} > but not > {noformat} > SELECT * FROM foo WHERE k1 IN (0, 1) AND k2 IN (1, 2) > {noformat} > There is no particular reason for us not supporting the later (to the best of > my knowledge) since it's reasonably straighforward, so we should fix it. > I'll note that using {{IN}} on a partition key is not necessarily a better > idea than parallelizing queries server client side so this syntax, when > introduced, should probably be used sparingly, but given we do support IN on > partition keys, I see no reason not to extend it to compound PK properly. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)