));
ssTableWriter.newRow(bytes(0|20101201));
ssTableWriter.addColumn(
builder.build(),
ByteBuffer.allocate(0),
System.nanoTime()
);
ssTableWriter.close();
}
}
Any thoughts?
Daniel Morton
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 8:12 PM
particular use case, all I care about is the values in the column names
themselves (and the associated sorting that goes with them).
Any info or help anyone could provide would be very much appreciated.
Regards,
Daniel Morton
Hi Tyler... Thank you very much for the response. It is nice to know that
there is some possibility this might work. :)
Regards,
Daniel Morton
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Tyler Hobbs ty...@datastax.com wrote:
You can get away with a 1 to 2GB heap if you don't put too much pressure
bytes is the statically imported ByteBufferUtil.bytes method)
But doing this resulted in an ArrayIndexOutOfBounds exception from
Cassandra. Is doing this any different than using the CompositeSerializer
you suggest?
Thanks again,
Daniel Morton
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Keith Wright
Hi Edward... Thanks for the pointer. I will use that going forward.
Daniel Morton
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Edward Capriolo edlinuxg...@gmail.comwrote:
You should probably be using system.nanoTime() not
system.currentTimeInMillis(). The user is free to set the timestamp to
whatever
that the minimum
recommended system requirements are 8 to 12 cores and 8 GB of RAM, which is
a far cry from the lowest-end machine I'm considering.
Any info or help anyone could provide would be most appreciated.
Regards,
Daniel Morton
