I am not worried about getting the occasional wrong result - if I were, I couldn't use Cassandra. I am only worried about breaking the index as a whole. If concurrent changes to the tree happen to modify the same record, I don't mind if one of them "wins" as long as the result is a working tree.
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Tatu Saloranta <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Ian Soboroff <[email protected]> wrote: > > I was going to say, if ordered trees are your problem, Cassandra is not > your > > solution. Try building something with Berkeley DB. > > Also -- while there are no official plans for this, there have been > discussions on Voldemort list, wrt. possible future work to make some > use of their pluggable backends. > The most commonly used configuration is that of using BDBs; and > supposedly it is not totally out of question to consider adding > specific backend-dependant functionality in future. > So it might make sense to ping Voldemort-ians too; it is another > actively-developed distributed key/value store implementation, with > slightly different trade-offs. > > -+ Tatu +- >
