[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6477?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14503171#comment-14503171
]
Jonathan Ellis commented on CASSANDRA-6477:
-------------------------------------------
bq. calling both 'indexes' would bring on more confusion in the long term
Disagreed. RDBMS users have lived with hash indexes vs btree indexes vs bitmap
indexes with different abilities for a long time. (Notably hash indexes have
exactly the limitations of global indexes.)
MV otoh has a completely different feature set that GI doesn't even start to
offer.
bq. Also, I personally couldn't care less about the names used by DDB. I'd
rather stick closer to what SQL has, since people coming from SQL world, and
not people coming from DynamoDB, are our target audience.
My point is that whether you come from SQL or NoSQL, MV is the wrong choice.
> Global indexes
> --------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-6477
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6477
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: API, Core
> Reporter: Jonathan Ellis
> Assignee: Carl Yeksigian
> Labels: cql
> Fix For: 3.0
>
>
> Local indexes are suitable for low-cardinality data, where spreading the
> index across the cluster is a Good Thing. However, for high-cardinality
> data, local indexes require querying most nodes in the cluster even if only a
> handful of rows is returned.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
