D
- Original Message -
From: Jonathan Ellis [mailto:jbel...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 09:57 PM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: Appending to fields
Sounds like Ed is right and you should be doing the append as
add-a-new-column instead
Cassandra handles this by using a different design, you don't append
anything. You use the fact that in Cassandra you have dynamic columns
and you make a new column every time you want to put more data in. Then
when you do finally need to read the data out you read out a slice of
columns, not
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Marcus Bointon
mar...@synchromedia.co.uk wrote:
I'm wondering how cassandra implements appending values to fields. Since (so
the docs tell me) there's not really any such thing such thing as an update
in Cassandra
You've answered your own question.
--
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Marcus Bointon
mar...@synchromedia.co.uk wrote:
mysql reads the entire value of y, appends the data, then writes the whole
thing back, which unfortunately is an O(n^2) operation.
Actually, this analysis is incorrect. Appending M bytes to N is O(N +
M) which
As Jonathan stated I believe that the insert is in O(N + M), unless there
are some operations that I don't know.
There are other NoSQL database that can be used with Cassandra as buffers
for quick access and modification and then after the content can be dumped
into Cassandra for long term
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Victor Kabdebon
victor.kabde...@gmail.comwrote:
As Jonathan stated I believe that the insert is in O(N + M), unless there
are some operations that I don't know.
There are other NoSQL database that can be used with Cassandra as
buffers for quick access and
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Dan Kuebrich dan.kuebr...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Victor Kabdebon
victor.kabde...@gmail.com wrote:
As Jonathan stated I believe that the insert is in O(N + M), unless there
are some operations that I don't know.
There are other
On 31 May 2011, at 23:03, Dan Kuebrich wrote:
I think perhaps OP meant O(N * M), where N is number of rows and M is total
bytes.
That's probably more accurate.
This is what it was doing: Say I repeatedly append 100 bytes to the same 1000
records. First time around that's 100,000 bytes to
Sounds like Ed is right and you should be doing the append as
add-a-new-column instead of overwrite-existing-column.
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Marcus Bointon
mar...@synchromedia.co.uk wrote:
On 31 May 2011, at 23:03, Dan Kuebrich wrote:
I think perhaps OP meant O(N * M), where N is
