On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Santiago Basulto <santiago.basu...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've been taking a look at Cassandra code for a while (since last > year) and using and trying it "in home". Nowdays i've started to take > a look at the "new stuff", more precisely to CQL. I think it's great, > I mean, just taking a look at Eric presentation > (http://www.datastax.com/2011/07/video-eric-evans-on-cql) makes you > love just it. > > But, now i'm wondering: isn't it a one-way path? The kind you never > returns? I mean, if the Cassandra starts to grow in complexity, and > the datamodel extends a little bit, and everything start to grow, and > things like "query parsing", "query execution planning", "query > optimization" start to arise, would't it go against the first "simple, > fast" philosophy of the beginning?
I know it's bad form to answer a question with a question, but how is this any different than any other type of query interface? Or to put it another way, what is it about a query language that you find inherently complex? -- Eric Evans Acunu | http://www.acunu.com | @acunu
