Hi Jon, thanks for your suggestion (or warning :) ).
yes, i've read sth. about your point and i know that just because of using MVs,
there are really several issues open in JIRA on bootstrapping, compaction and
incremental repair stuff but, after reading almost all jira tickets (with
comments and history) related to using MVs, AFAU all that issues come out by
either loosing syncronization between base table and MV by deleting columns or
rows values on base table or having a huge system that has large and dynamic
number of nodes/data/workloads. We use 3.11.3 version and most of the critical
issues were fixed on 3.10 but of course I might be miss sth so i 'll be glad
if you point me some specific jira ticket.
We have a certain use case that require updates on filtering (clustering)
columns.Our motivation for using MV was avoiding updates (delete + create) on
primaryKey columns because we suppose that cassandra developers can manage
this unpreferred operation better then us. I'm really confused now.
On Wednesday, July 24, 2019, 11:30:15 PM GMT+3, Jon Haddad
<j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote:
I really, really advise against using MVs. I've had to help a number of teams
move off them. Not sure what list of bugs you read, but if the list didn't
include "will destabilize your cluster to the point of constant downtime" then
the list was incomplete.
Jon
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 6:32 AM mehmet bursali <bursal...@yahoo.com.invalid>
wrote:
+ additional info: our production environment is a multiDC cluster that consist
of 6 nodes in 2 DataCenters
On Wednesday, July 24, 2019, 3:35:11 PM GMT+3, mehmet bursali
<bursal...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
Hi Cassandra folks,I'm planning to use Materialized View (MV) on production
for some specific cases. I've read a lot of blogs, technical documents about
the risks of using it and everything seems ok for our use case.
My question is about consistency(also durability) evaluation of MV usage with
an additional primary key column. İn one of our case, we select an UDT column
of base table as addtional primary key column on MV. (UDT possible values are
non nullable and restricted with domain.) . After inserting a record in base
table, this additonal column (MVs primary key column)
value also will be updated for 1 or 2 time. So in our case, for each update
operation that will be occured on base table there are going to be delete and
create operations inside MV.
Does it matter from consistency(also durability) perspective that using
additional primary key column whether as partition column or clustering column?
