On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:41 AM, aaron morton wrote:
> Sounds good. Do you want to make the change ?
>
Done.
>
> Thanks for taking the time.
>
Thanks for giving the answer!
Jim
>
> -
> Aaron Morton
> Freelance Developer
> @aaronmorton
> http://www.thelastpickle.com
>
> On 7/06/2
Sounds good. Do you want to make the change ?
Thanks for taking the time.
-
Aaron Morton
Freelance Developer
@aaronmorton
http://www.thelastpickle.com
On 7/06/2012, at 7:54 AM, Jim Ancona wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Jim Ancona wrote:
> It might be a good idea fo
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Jim Ancona wrote:
> It might be a good idea for the documentation to reflect the tradeoffs
> more clearly.
Here's a proposed addition to the Secondary Index FAQ at
http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/SecondaryIndexes
Q: How does choice of Consistency Level affect c
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:34 PM, aaron morton wrote:
> IIRC index slices work a little differently with consistency, they need to
> have CL level nodes available for all token ranges. If you drop it to CL
> ONE the read is local only for a particular token range.
>
Yes, this is what we observed. W
IIRC index slices work a little differently with consistency, they need to have
CL level nodes available for all token ranges. If you drop it to CL ONE the
read is local only for a particular token range.
The problem when doing index reads is the nodes that contain the results can no
longer be
Hi,
We have an application with two code paths, one of which uses a secondary
index query and the other, which doesn't. While testing node down scenarios
in our cluster we got a result which surprised (and concerned) me, and I
wanted to find out if the behavior we observed is expected.
Background
