Re: New Features - Future releases
I've been working on integrating lucene with Cassandra. I'll put what I've got on github Sunday if people are interested. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 18, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Ian Holsman i...@holsman.net wrote: There was mention of lucene integration in the initial FB release. On Sep 18, 2009, at 9:59 PM, Jeffrey Damick wrote: Speaking of lucene, has anyone done any integration with lucene for cassandra or are there plans to provide full-text searches within cassandra? Thanks -jeff On 9/18/09 9:49 PM, Joe Stump j...@joestump.net wrote: On Sep 18, 2009, at 9:46 PM, cont...@shahan.me wrote: Your idea is not bad: having a service layer in front of Cassandra. How about a separate opensource project or a standard/spec for ACL in the service layer? Sure. SOLR is kind of like this for Lucene. --Joe -- Ian Holsman i...@holsman.net
Re: New Features - Future releases
That sounds very good! Shahan On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 07:24:33 -0400, Jake Luciani jak...@gmail.com wrote: I've been working on integrating lucene with Cassandra. I'll put what I've got on github Sunday if people are interested. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 18, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Ian Holsman i...@holsman.net wrote: There was mention of lucene integration in the initial FB release. On Sep 18, 2009, at 9:59 PM, Jeffrey Damick wrote: Speaking of lucene, has anyone done any integration with lucene for cassandra or are there plans to provide full-text searches within cassandra? Thanks -jeff On 9/18/09 9:49 PM, Joe Stump j...@joestump.net wrote: On Sep 18, 2009, at 9:46 PM, cont...@shahan.me wrote: Your idea is not bad: having a service layer in front of Cassandra. How about a separate opensource project or a standard/spec for ACL in the service layer? Sure. SOLR is kind of like this for Lucene. --Joe -- Ian Holsman i...@holsman.net
Re: New Features - Future releases
On Sep 18, 2009, at 9:33 PM, cont...@shahan.me wrote: • ACL I'm strongly against ACL. Cassandra was built for highly scalable and highly distributed environments, which always sit behind firewalls. ALC's can easily be implemented in a service layer in front of Cassandra. • Multiple data center replication in the background. maybe a multi master type thing It already has this. It was built from the ground up for this. It's highly tolerant to partitioning and has always available writes. All replication is done in the background (unless you specifically set a write to a high consistency level). --Joe
Re: New Features - Future releases
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:41:48 -0400, Joe Stump j...@joestump.net wrote: On Sep 18, 2009, at 9:33 PM, cont...@shahan.me wrote: • ACL I'm strongly against ACL. Cassandra was built for highly scalable and highly distributed environments, which always sit behind firewalls. ALC's can easily be implemented in a service layer in front of Cassandra. Your idea is not bad: having a service layer in front of Cassandra. How about a separate opensource project or a standard/spec for ACL in the service layer? • Multiple data center replication in the background. maybe a multi master type thing It already has this. It was built from the ground up for this. It's highly tolerant to partitioning and has always available writes. All replication is done in the background (unless you specifically set a write to a high consistency level). I'm not an expert in Cassandra, so thank you for pointing this out. Shahan --Joe
Re: New Features - Future releases
On Sep 18, 2009, at 9:46 PM, cont...@shahan.me wrote: Your idea is not bad: having a service layer in front of Cassandra. How about a separate opensource project or a standard/spec for ACL in the service layer? Sure. SOLR is kind of like this for Lucene. --Joe
Re: New Features - Future releases
Speaking of lucene, has anyone done any integration with lucene for cassandra or are there plans to provide full-text searches within cassandra? Thanks -jeff On 9/18/09 9:49 PM, Joe Stump j...@joestump.net wrote: On Sep 18, 2009, at 9:46 PM, cont...@shahan.me wrote: Your idea is not bad: having a service layer in front of Cassandra. How about a separate opensource project or a standard/spec for ACL in the service layer? Sure. SOLR is kind of like this for Lucene. --Joe
Re: New Features - Future releases
On Sep 18, 2009, at 8:41 PM, Joe Stump wrote: On Sep 18, 2009, at 9:33 PM, cont...@shahan.me wrote: • ACL I'm strongly against ACL. Cassandra was built for highly scalable and highly distributed environments, which always sit behind firewalls. ALC's can easily be implemented in a service layer in front of Cassandra. ACLs could also be implemented as a pluggable model that defaults to off, if you really needed a per-CF or per-keyspace ACL. Honestly, for what Cassandra does best, I think it'd have to be as lightweight as possible. • Multiple data center replication in the background. maybe a multi master type thing It already has this. It was built from the ground up for this. It's highly tolerant to partitioning and has always available writes. All replication is done in the background (unless you specifically set a write to a high consistency level). You know, it does and it doesn't. RackAwareStrategy isn't a true N+1 scaling solution. Currently, RackAwareStrategy only guarantees that it will try to replicate data to one other data center and/or one other rack, depending on the number of replicas specified. It's just a problem with the logic used, if the partitioner has already found a node in another data center, it stops caring about whether additional replicas go to another data center, the same applies to racks...if it's already found a node in another racks, it stops trying to ensure additional replicas go to different racks. I'd go into more detail on this, but it gets into code, so it's really more appropriate for the dev list, or you can open a JIRA ticket and I'll comment on it in more detail. This is something I'm considering working on, after I finish my work on mapped and classless EndPoint snitches.
Re: New Features - Future releases
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Jonathan Mischo jmis...@quagility.com wrote: • Multiple data center replication in the background. maybe a multi master type thing It already has this. It was built from the ground up for this. It's highly tolerant to partitioning and has always available writes. All replication is done in the background (unless you specifically set a write to a high consistency level). You know, it does and it doesn't. RackAwareStrategy isn't a true N+1 scaling solution. Currently, RackAwareStrategy only guarantees that it will try to replicate data to one other data center and/or one other rack, depending on the number of replicas specified. Yes; that's what it's supposed to do, and it's satisfying a very real use case: I want my data's primary data center to be DC A, but I want one replica in DC B in case A is completely unavailable. Other use cases can use different Strategies. That's why they're pluggable. It's not one-size-fits-all and it's not supposed to be. -Jonathan
