@Tyler, Going back to your earlier proposal i.e. ------ Instead, make the version part of the primary key:
CREATE TABLE document_store (document_id bigint, version int, document text, PRIMARY KEY (document_id, version)) WITH CLUSTERING ORDER BY (version desc) ------- My concern with this approach was having to save multiple versions of the huge documents. You suggested I could delete the older versions. So can I use BATCH statements to make sure that when I write version 2, I also delete the previous version 1 as well. Is this a legitimate use of BATCH statements. Does using BATCH impact read latency? Regards Sachin On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Tyler Hobbs <ty...@datastax.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Sachin Nikam <skni...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> #1. We have 2 data centers located close by with plans to expand to more >> data centers which are even further away geographically. >> #2. How will this impact light weight transactions when there is high >> level of network contention for cross data center traffic. >> > > If you are only expecting updates to a given document from one DC, then > you could use LOCAL_SERIAL for the LWT operations. If you can't do that, > then LWT are probably not a great option for you. > > >> #3. Do you know of any real examples where companies have used light >> weight transactions in a multi-data center traffic. >> > > I don't know who's doing that off the top of my head, but I imagine > they're using LOCAL_SERIAL. > > > -- > Tyler Hobbs > DataStax <http://datastax.com/> >