I answered my own question with a test:
Using default limit of 100
---
RowKey: test
=> (column=89b81b00-d0f3-11e1-8d4c-000c29d2a972:A, value=,
timestamp=1342628020428000, ttl=10)
=> (column=89b81b00-d0f3-11e1-8d4c-000c29d2a972:B, value=,
timestamp=1342628020428000, ttl=30)
1 Row Returned.
Elapsed time: 4 msec(s).
[default@context] list context_session_views;
Using default limit of 100
---
RowKey: test
=> (column=89b81b00-d0f3-11e1-8d4c-000c29d2a972:B, value=,
timestamp=1342628020428000, ttl=30)
1 Row Returned.
Elapsed time: 3 msec(s).
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:06 AM, rohit bhatia wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't think that composite columns have "parent columns". your point
> might be true for supercolumns ..
> but each composite column is probably independent..
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Thomas Van de Velde
> wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > I am trying to understand the expiration behavior of composite columns.
> > Assume I have two entries both have the same parent column name but each
> one
> > has a different ttl. Would expiration be applied at the parent column
> level
> > (taking into account ttls set per column under the parent and expiring
> all
> > of the child columns when the most recent ttl is met) or is each each
> child
> > entry expired independently?
> >
> > Would this be correct?
> >
> > A:B->ttl=5
> > A:C->ttl=10
> >
> >
> > t+5: Nothing gets expired (because A:C's expiration has not yet been
> > reached)
> > t+10: Both A:B and A:C are expired
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Thomas
>
