In Cassandra 3.0 there will be a massive rewrite of what an sstable even is, and the cli will be totally useless to inspect it. there won't be "column names" anymore, timestamps will be stored once per row (assuming they're the same) and a whole slew of other optimizations. If you want to look at a table, a community project to inspect a table byte by byte will be necessary since everything legacy that made CQL inefficient on disk will be dropped.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8099 On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Moshe Kranc <moshekr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, cassandra-cli still works. But it also tells me that I should switch to > CQL, and it doesn't want to display CQL3 tables. My question isn't how to > get the info today – it's whether that info will still be available in the > future. > > > > From: DuyHai Doan [mailto:doanduy...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 10:40 PM > To: user@cassandra.apache.org > Subject: Re: Viewing Cassandra's Internal table Structure in a CQL world > > > > I think that you can still use cassandra-cli from 2.0.x to look into > internal table structure. Of course you will see bytes instead of "readable" > values but it's better than nothing. It's already the case for CQL > collections when you're trying to decode them using cassandra-cli > > > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Moshe Kranc <moshekr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > CQL is the future, and it provides a great high-level view of keyspaces. (I > am drinking the Kool-Aid.) But, I believe every C* developer needs to also > look at the table's internal structure, e.g., what do the column names > actually look like. Only by keeping an eye on the physical structure can > you tune your queries for best performance. > > > > To date, I have been using cassandra-cli to view the table's internal > structure. But, I get bombarded with all kinds of warnings about how I > should switch to CQL and stop using a deprecated product. > > > > My question: After the revolution (once Cassandra-cli has been retired), how > am I supposed to look at the table's internal structure? Or, do you believe > that ultimately there will be no need or value in looking at the internal > structure? (I would disagree.) > > > > -- Jon Haddad http://www.rustyrazorblade.com twitter: rustyrazorblade
