[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7123?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13986672#comment-13986672
]
Alex P commented on CASSANDRA-7123:
-----------------------------------
I agree that the first part is better, but the 2nd part refers to Cassandra
operations priority order which afaict is not defined anywhere in the spec,
thus making this part raise questions (or even worse might lead users to depend
on this sort of order instead of using timestamps).
{quote}
if no timestamp is provided for each operation, then all operations will be
applied with the same timestamp and that might result to an order that doesn't
correspond to the order they are declared in the BATCH. You can force a
particular operation ordering by using per-operation timestamps
{quote}
> BATCH documentation should be explicit about ordering guarantees
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-7123
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7123
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: Documentation & website
> Reporter: Tyler Hobbs
> Assignee: Tyler Hobbs
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: 7123.txt
>
>
> In the CQL3 [batch statement
> documentation](http://cassandra.apache.org/doc/cql3/CQL.html#batchStmt) we
> don't mention that there are no ordering guarantees, which can lead to
> somewhat surprising behavior (CASSANDRA-6291).
> We should also mention that you could specify timestamps in order to achieve
> a particular ordering.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
