[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6477?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14631766#comment-14631766 ]
Jon Haddad commented on CASSANDRA-6477: --------------------------------------- It seems odd to me that as a user I'd ask for a certain consistency level and I would get a successful response that was essentially footnoted with "not really". Perhaps I was using batching incorrectly, but in my experience I found it useful to keep multiple views of my data up to date, and I was doing so at QUORUM because I needed to be strongly consistent. Not having it even as an option kills a lot of use cases. This next part is up for debate, but is based on the conversations and questions I've had with people at Cassandra Day. This feature is a big deal for people coming from the RDBMS world - probably more so than existing users. There's usually quite a bit of discussion around this topic. At my last talk, I brought up materialized views and people bit onto it like a dog with a bone. I feel like mandatory async is a strange caveat that would be unexpected for these people. > 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)