[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6477?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14626349#comment-14626349
]
T Jake Luciani commented on CASSANDRA-6477:
-------------------------------------------
bq. I'll first note that post-8099 we do support null for clustering keys
internally, so we can (and should) use that.
Oh good! That'll be easy then for clustering keys. (we should note that in 3.0
docs)
bq. Which is why I would much prefer a general solution à la CASSANDRA-9796.
Yeah our concern was trying to support something only allowed for MV tables
would end up biting us.
I'm still not sure how handling a null partition key would work though in term
of tokens. If you have a sparse column across millions of rows in the base
table you would end up with a HUGE hotspot since all NULL keys would end up on
the same partition (token X)
> Materialized Views (was: 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 beta 1
>
> Attachments: test-view-data.sh, users.yaml
>
>
> 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)
