Can you describe your use-case in detail as it might be easier to explain a model with composite names. Later, Dean
From: Edward Kibardin <infa...@gmail.com<mailto:infa...@gmail.com>> Reply-To: "user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>" <user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>> Date: Thursday, September 27, 2012 4:02 AM To: "user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>" <user@cassandra.apache.org<mailto:user@cassandra.apache.org>> Subject: Re: Once again, super columns or composites? Sylvain, thanks for the response! I have a use case which involves update of 1.5 millions of values a day. Currently I'm just creating a new SSTable using SSTableWriter and uploading these SuperColunms to Cassandra. But from my understanding, you just can't update composite column, only delete and insert... so this may make my update use case much more complicated. It also not possible to add any sub-column to your composite, which mean we falling again to delete-insert case. ... and as I know, DynamicComposites is not recommended (and actually not supported by Pycassa). Am I correct? Ed On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Sylvain Lebresne <sylv...@datastax.com<mailto:sylv...@datastax.com>> wrote: When people suggest composites instead of super columns, they mean composite column 'names', not composite column 'values'. None of the advantages you cite stand in the case of composite column 'names'. -- Sylvain On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Edward Kibardin <infa...@gmail.com<mailto:infa...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Hi Community, > > I know, I know... every one is claiming Super Columns are not good enough > and it dangerous to use them now. > But from my perspective, they have several very good advantages like: > > You are not fixed schema and always can add one more columns to subset of > your supercolumns > SuperColumn is loaded as whole if you requesting for at least one sub > column, but it's the same as loading a whole composite value to get only one > sub-value > In supercolumns you can update only one subcolumn without touching other > subcolumns, in case of composites you're unable to update just a portion of > composite value. > > May be I do not understand composites correctly, but having very small > supercolumns (10-15 subcolumns) I still think SuperColumns might be the best > solution for me... > In addition, building supercolumns with SSTableWriter is pretty much > strait-forward for me, while it's not the case with composites... > > Any arguments? > >
