You CAN only supply some of the components for a slice.
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Josh Dzielak j...@keen.io wrote:
Is there a way to include *multiple* column names in a slice query where
one only component of the composite column name key needs to match?
For example
Is there a way to include *multiple* column names in a slice query where one
only component of the composite column name key needs to match?
For example, if this was a single row -
username:0 | username:1 | city:0 | city:1 | other:0|
other:1
Hi - We gave a dynamic CF which has a key and multiple columns which get added
dynamically. For example -
Key_1 , Column1, Column2, Column3,...
Key_2 , Column1, Column2, Column3,.
Now I want to get all columns after Column3...how do we query that ? The
ColumnSliceIterator in hector
In thrift an empty ByteBuffer (in some cases an empty string ) can mean
both start and end
Thus:
start: , end is the entire slice
start: c, end start at c inclusive rest of slice
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Kanwar Sangha kan...@mavenir.com wrote:
Hi – We gave a dynamic CF which has a
it, the column is marked for deletion in order to
keep it out from the next query on this row.
Ok, so, I've been figured out that after many insertions plus deletion
updates, my queries( column slice query ) are taking more time to be
performed. Even if there are only few columns
on this row.
Ok, so, I've been figured out that after many insertions plus deletion
updates, my queries( column slice query ) are taking more time to be
performed. Even if there are only few columns, lower than 100.
So it looks like that the longer is the number of columns being deleted,
the longer
which is read and processed by another
process. After reading it, the column is marked for deletion in order to keep
it out from the next query on this row.
Ok, so, I've been figured out that after many insertions plus deletion
updates, my queries( column slice query ) are taking more time
. After reading it, the column is marked for deletion in
order to keep it out from the next query on this row.
Ok, so, I've been figured out that after many insertions plus deletion
updates, my queries( column slice query ) are taking more time to be
performed. Even if there are only few columns
process. After reading it, the column is marked for deletion in order to keep
it out from the next query on this row.
Ok, so, I've been figured out that after many insertions plus deletion
updates, my queries( column slice query ) are taking more time to be
performed. Even if there are only
figured out that after many insertions plus deletion
updates, my queries( column slice query ) are taking more time to be
performed. Even if there are only few columns, lower than 100.
So it looks like that the longer is the number of columns being
deleted, the longer is the time spent
query on this row.
Ok, so, I've been figured out that after many insertions plus deletion
updates, my queries( column slice query ) are taking more time to be
performed. Even if there are only few columns, lower than 100.
So it looks like that the longer is the number of columns being
is marked for deletion in order to keep
it out from the next query on this row.
Ok, so, I've been figured out that after many insertions plus deletion
updates, my queries( column slice query ) are taking more time to be
performed. Even if there are only few columns, lower than 100.
So it looks
insertions plus deletion
updates, my queries( column slice query ) are taking more time to be
performed. Even if there are only few columns, lower than 100.
So it looks like that the longer is the number of columns being
deleted, the longer is the time spent for a query.
- Internally at C*, does
Hello,
Given a row like this
key1 = (A:A:C), (A:A:B), (B:A:C), (B:C:D)
Is there a way to create a slice query that returns all columns where the
_second_ component is A? That is, I would like to get back the following
columns by asking for columns where component[0] = * and component[1
Is there a way to create a slice query that returns all columns where the
_second_ component is A?
No.
You can only get a contiguous slice of columns.
Cheers
-
Aaron Morton
Freelance Developer
@aaronmorton
http://www.thelastpickle.com
On 16/08/2012, at 7:21 AM, Mike Hugo m
';
#2: set CF['RowKey']['1000:C1']='A=2,B=3'';
#2 has the Composite Column and #1 does not.
Now when I execute the Composite Slice query by 1000 and C1, I do get
both the columns above.
I am hoping get #2 only since I am specifically providing C1 as
Start and Finish
I think in this case that's just Hector's way of setting the EOC byte for a
component. My guess is that the composite isn't being structured correctly
through Hector, as well.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 4:40 AM, aaron morton aa...@thelastpickle.comwrote:
The first thing that stands out is that
I have tested this extensively and EOC has huge issue in terms of
usability of CompositeTypes in Cassandra.
As an example: If you have 2 Composite Columns such as A:B:C and A:D:C.
And if you do search on A:B as start and end Composite Components, it
will return D as well. Because it returns all
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Sunit Randhawa sunit.randh...@gmail.comwrote:
I have tested this extensively and EOC has huge issue in terms of
usability of CompositeTypes in Cassandra.
As an example: If you have 2 Composite Columns such as A:B:C and A:D:C.
And if you do search on A:B as
['RowKey']['1000']='A=1,B=2';
#2: set CF['RowKey']['1000:C1']='A=2,B=3'';
#2 has the Composite Column and #1 does not.
Now when I execute the Composite Slice query by 1000 and C1, I do get
both the columns above.
I am hoping get #2 only since I am specifically providing C1 as
Start
not.
Now when I execute the Composite Slice query by 1000 and C1, I do get
both the columns above.
I am hoping get #2 only since I am specifically providing C1 as
Start and Finish Composite Range with
Composite.ComponentEquality.EQUAL.
I am not sure if this is by design
does not.
Now when I execute the Composite Slice query by 1000 and C1, I do get
both the columns above.
I am hoping get #2 only since I am specifically providing C1 as
Start and Finish Composite Range with
Composite.ComponentEquality.EQUAL.
I am not sure if this is by design.
Thanks
, Sunit Randhawa wrote:
Hello,
I have 2 Columns for a 'RowKey' as below:
#1 : set CF['RowKey']['1000']='A=1,B=2';
#2: set CF['RowKey']['1000:C1']='A=2,B=3'';
#2 has the Composite Column and #1 does not.
Now when I execute the Composite Slice query by 1000 and C1, I do get
both
Hello,
I have 2 Columns for a 'RowKey' as below:
#1 : set CF['RowKey']['1000']='A=1,B=2';
#2: set CF['RowKey']['1000:C1']='A=2,B=3'';
#2 has the Composite Column and #1 does not.
Now when I execute the Composite Slice query by 1000 and C1, I do get
both the columns above.
I am hoping get #2
:
Hello,
I have 2 Columns for a 'RowKey' as below:
#1 : set CF['RowKey']['1000']='A=1,B=2';
#2: set CF['RowKey']['1000:C1']='A=2,B=3'';
#2 has the Composite Column and #1 does not.
Now when I execute the Composite Slice query by 1000 and C1, I do get
both the columns above.
I am
'';
#2 has the Composite Column and #1 does not.
Now when I execute the Composite Slice query by 1000 and C1, I do get
both the columns above.
I am hoping get #2 only since I am specifically providing C1 as
Start and Finish Composite Range with
Composite.ComponentEquality.EQUAL.
I am
is there such a thing? a query that runs against a SC family and
returns a subset of subcolumns from a set of super-columns?
is there a way to have eg a slice query (or super slice query) only
return the column names, rather than the value as well?
@cassandra.apache.org
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 06:34:08 -0400
To: user@cassandra.apache.orgmailto:user@cassandra.apache.org
user@cassandra.apache.orgmailto:user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: super sub slice query?
is there such a thing? a query that runs against a SC family and returns a
subset of subcolumns
?
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Roland Gude [mailto:roland.g...@yoochoose.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Juli 2011 11:22
An: user@cassandra.apache.org
Betreff: AW: results of index slice query
Created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2964
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jonathan
Created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2964
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jonathan Ellis [mailto:jbel...@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juli 2011 17:35
An: user@cassandra.apache.org
Betreff: Re: results of index slice query
Sounds like a Cassandra bug to me
Hi,
I was just experiencing that when i do an IndexSliceQuery with the index column
not in the slicerange the index column will be returned anyways. Is this
behavior intended or is it a bug (if so - is it a Cassandra bug or a hector
bug)?
I am using Cassandra 0.7.7 and hector 0.7-26
Greetings,
Sounds like a Cassandra bug to me.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Roland Gude roland.g...@yoochoose.com wrote:
Hi,
I was just experiencing that when i do an IndexSliceQuery with the index
column not in the slicerange the index column will be returned anyways. Is
this behavior intended or
+ / + order_id + / (+ suffix) ][attribute] =
value
For example,
Order[ 100 ][ 20031210022059/190209-20031210-4476885-s/ ]
is a super column.
Because we want to scan them in the latest-first order, range slice
query with reversed order is used. (Partitioner is
ByteOrderedPartitioner
I checked out #2212 and was able to reproduce the problem.
Thanks for investigating this and putting together a good script to
reproduce!
- Tyler
For example,
Order[ 100 ][ 20031210022059/190209-20031210-4476885-s/ ]
is a super column.
Because we want to scan them in the latest-first order, range slice
query with reversed order is used. (Partitioner is
ByteOrderedPartitioner).
In some supercolumns in my cassandra instance, reversed query
-20031210-4476885-s/ ]
is a super column.
Because we want to scan them in the latest-first order, range slice
query with reversed order is used. (Partitioner is
ByteOrderedPartitioner).
In some supercolumns in my cassandra instance, reversed query returns
no result while it should have
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:57 AM, Colin Vipurs zodiac...@gmail.com wrote:
...
ColumnFamily {
'key1' {
'SuperColumn1' {
'Column1' : somevalue
'Column2' : somevalue
}
'SuperColumn2' {
'Column3' : somevalue
}
}
'key2' {
'SuperColumn1'
I'm not doing schema migration, but I suspect my lack of experience
and understanding of column-based data is clouding the issue. What I
have is 2 pieces of information, let's call them LH and RH and a
single long value representing the link between them, S. The data
needs to be ordered by S, so
38 matches
Mail list logo
