Surely an error because the grammar definition for UPDATE does not mention
any function call:
<update-stmt> ::= UPDATE <tablename> ( USING <option> ( AND <option> )* )?
SET <assignment> ( ',' <assignment> )*
WHERE <where-clause> ( IF <condition> ( AND condition )* )?
<assignment> ::= <identifier> '=' <term> |
<identifier> '=' <identifier> ('+' | '-') (<int-term> | <set-literal> |
<list-literal>) |
<identifier> '=' <identifier> '+' <map-literal> |
<identifier> '[' <term> ']' '=' <term>
<condition> ::= <identifier> '=' <term> | <identifier> '[' <term> ']' '='
<term>
<where-clause> ::= <relation> ( AND <relation> )*
<relation> ::= <identifier> '=' <term> | <identifier> IN '(' ( <term> ( ','
<term> )* )? ')' | <identifier> IN '?'
<option> ::= TIMESTAMP <integer> | TTL <integer>
Unless the grammar in the doc is itself not up-to-date....
Le 10 mars 2016 22:31, "Kim Liu" <k...@edgewaternetworks.com> a écrit :
> Um, I’m not entirely sure how I misread it, since this was copy-pasted
> from the document:
> UPDATE atable SET col = some_function(?) …;
>
> So the document examples certainly seem to support the use of UDF in
> UPDATE. I suppose the document may be more erroneous in its writing than
> I in its misreading.
>
> Additionally, this statement works in cqlsh (presuming max_int() is a UDF):
> UPDATE test_table SET data=max_int(3,4) WHERE idx='abc’;
>
> So, if the grammar is not supposed to allow this, then there is a bug
> somewhere because in 3.3 it certainly seems to be parsed and executed
> without complaint.
>
> —Kim
>
>
> From: DuyHai Doan <doanduy...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "user@cassandra.apache.org" <user@cassandra.apache.org>
> Date: Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 13:21
> To: "user@cassandra.apache.org" <user@cassandra.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Using User Defined Functions in UPDATE queries
>
> You have misread the CQL doc given in the link. According to CQL update
> grammar it's not possible to use UDF. I see UDF only allowed in select
> clause...
>
>>
>>
