[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6167?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13901477#comment-13901477
]
Sylvain Lebresne commented on CASSANDRA-6167:
---------------------------------------------
bq. it is almost always necessary to do two rounds trips with the current
approach.
I suppose it's not entirely relevant to the overall scope but I'm curious, why
is that (assuming you can cache the last computed aggregation and that whatever
background thread you have can update that value)?
bq. Perhaps we could permit filtering based on the value of a static column by
comparison to a non-static column
I though about that too and I agree that at least in this example that sounds a
lot less bad. Though arguably that may not cover the full scope of 'termination
predicate'. Might be good enough in practice, or useful anyway in its own
right, I don't know.
bq. It would be very incorrect to assume that this ticket would only be used
for aggregation.
I understand. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm really not convinced by the
actual proposition here and that one sign that it may might not be "the way to
go" would be to not be able to come with at least one convincing example that
don't feel hackish. But I don't really disagree on the underlying idea of
exposing finer ways to terminate slices :)
> Add end-slice termination predicate
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-6167
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6167
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: API, Core
> Reporter: Tupshin Harper
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: ponies
>
> When doing performing storage-engine slices, it would sometimes be beneficial
> to have the slice terminate for other reasons other than number of columns or
> min/max cell name.
> Since we are able to look at the contents of each cell as we read it, this is
> potentially doable with very little overhead.
> Probably more challenging than the storage-engine implementation itself, is
> to come up with appropriate CQL syntax (Thrift, should we decide to support
> it, would be trivial).
> Two possibilities ar
> 1) special where function:
> SELECT pk,event from cf WHERE pk IN (1,5,10,11) AND
> partition_predicate({predicate})
> or a bigger language change, but i think one I prefer. more like:
> 2) SELECT pk,event from cf where pk IN (1,5,10,11) UNTIL PARTITION event
> {predicate}
> Neither feels perfect, but I do like the fact that the second one at least
> clearly states what it is intended to do.
> By using "UNTIL PARTITION", we could re-use the UNTIL keyword to handle other
> kinds of early-termination of selects that the coordinator might be able to
> do, such as stop retrieving additional rows from shards after a particular
> criterion was met.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)
