You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@cassandra.apache.org by Sotirios Delimanolis <so...@yahoo.com> on 2015/06/10 18:26:17 UTC
Atomic behavior and efficiency of a DELETE query with an IN clause
Hi,
When executing a DELETE statement with an IN clause, where the list contains partition keys, what is the underlying behaviour with regards to atomicity?
DELETE FROM MastersOfTheUniverse WHERE mastersID IN ('Man-At-Arms', 'Teela');
Is it going to act like an atomic batch where if one fails, all fail? If that is the case, is there any reason to use a BATCH statement with multiple single DELETE statement or should we always prefer a DELETE with an IN clause?
For example, given 3000 keys for rows I want to delete, should I issue a single DELETE query and provide all the keys in the IN argument or should I add 3000 DELETE queries to a BATCH statement?
Thank you,Sotirios
Re: Atomic behavior and efficiency of a DELETE query with an IN clause
Posted by Jonathan Haddad <jo...@jonhaddad.com>.
Multiple async requests. IN() is a performance nightmare unless you're
querying against a single partition key.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:09 PM Sotirios Delimanolis <so...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Similarly, should we send multiple SELECT requests or a single one with a
> SELECT...IN ?
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 11:27 AM, Sotirios Delimanolis <
> sotodel_89@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Will this "eventually they will all go through" behavior apply to the IN?
> How is this query written to the commitlog?
>
> Do you mean prepare a query like
>
> DELETE FROM MastersOfTheUniverse WHERE mastersID = ?;
>
> and execute it asynchronously 3000 times or add 3000 of these DELETE (bound) prepared statements to a BATCH statement executed asynchronously?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 9:51 AM, Jonathan Haddad <jo...@jonhaddad.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Batches don't work like that. It's possible for some to succeed, and
> later, the rest will. Atomic is the incorrect word to use, it's more like
> "eventually they will all go through".
>
> Do not use IN(), use a whole bunch of prepared statements asynchronously.
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 9:26 AM Sotirios Delimanolis <so...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> When executing a DELETE statement with an IN clause, where the list
> contains partition keys, what is the underlying behaviour with regards to
> atomicity?
>
> DELETE FROM MastersOfTheUniverse WHERE mastersID IN ('Man-At-Arms', 'Teela');
>
>
> Is it going to act like an atomic batch where if one fails, all fail? If
> that is the case, is there any reason to use a BATCH statement with
> multiple single DELETE statement or should we always prefer a DELETE with
> an IN clause?
>
> For example, given 3000 keys for rows I want to delete, should I issue a
> single DELETE query and provide all the keys in the IN argument or should
> I add 3000 DELETE queries to a BATCH statement?
>
> Thank you,
> Sotirios
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Atomic behavior and efficiency of a DELETE query with an IN
clause
Posted by Sotirios Delimanolis <so...@yahoo.com>.
Similarly, should we send multiple SELECT requests or a single one with a SELECT...IN ?
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 11:27 AM, Sotirios Delimanolis <so...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Will this "eventually they will all go through" behavior apply to the IN? How is this query written to the commitlog?
Do you mean prepare a query likeDELETE FROM MastersOfTheUniverse WHERE mastersID = ?;and execute it asynchronously 3000 times or add 3000 of these DELETE (bound) prepared statements to a BATCH statement executed asynchronously?
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 9:51 AM, Jonathan Haddad <jo...@jonhaddad.com> wrote:
Batches don't work like that. It's possible for some to succeed, and later, the rest will. Atomic is the incorrect word to use, it's more like "eventually they will all go through".
Do not use IN(), use a whole bunch of prepared statements asynchronously.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 9:26 AM Sotirios Delimanolis <so...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi,
When executing a DELETE statement with an IN clause, where the list contains partition keys, what is the underlying behaviour with regards to atomicity?
DELETE FROM MastersOfTheUniverse WHERE mastersID IN ('Man-At-Arms', 'Teela');
Is it going to act like an atomic batch where if one fails, all fail? If that is the case, is there any reason to use a BATCH statement with multiple single DELETE statement or should we always prefer a DELETE with an IN clause?
For example, given 3000 keys for rows I want to delete, should I issue a single DELETE query and provide all the keys in the IN argument or should I add 3000 DELETE queries to a BATCH statement?
Thank you,Sotirios
Re: Atomic behavior and efficiency of a DELETE query with an IN
clause
Posted by Sotirios Delimanolis <so...@yahoo.com>.
Will this "eventually they will all go through" behavior apply to the IN? How is this query written to the commitlog?
Do you mean prepare a query likeDELETE FROM MastersOfTheUniverse WHERE mastersID = ?;and execute it asynchronously 3000 times or add 3000 of these DELETE (bound) prepared statements to a BATCH statement executed asynchronously?
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 9:51 AM, Jonathan Haddad <jo...@jonhaddad.com> wrote:
Batches don't work like that. It's possible for some to succeed, and later, the rest will. Atomic is the incorrect word to use, it's more like "eventually they will all go through".
Do not use IN(), use a whole bunch of prepared statements asynchronously.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 9:26 AM Sotirios Delimanolis <so...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi,
When executing a DELETE statement with an IN clause, where the list contains partition keys, what is the underlying behaviour with regards to atomicity?
DELETE FROM MastersOfTheUniverse WHERE mastersID IN ('Man-At-Arms', 'Teela');
Is it going to act like an atomic batch where if one fails, all fail? If that is the case, is there any reason to use a BATCH statement with multiple single DELETE statement or should we always prefer a DELETE with an IN clause?
For example, given 3000 keys for rows I want to delete, should I issue a single DELETE query and provide all the keys in the IN argument or should I add 3000 DELETE queries to a BATCH statement?
Thank you,Sotirios
Re: Atomic behavior and efficiency of a DELETE query with an IN clause
Posted by Jonathan Haddad <jo...@jonhaddad.com>.
Batches don't work like that. It's possible for some to succeed, and
later, the rest will. Atomic is the incorrect word to use, it's more like
"eventually they will all go through".
Do not use IN(), use a whole bunch of prepared statements asynchronously.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 9:26 AM Sotirios Delimanolis <so...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When executing a DELETE statement with an IN clause, where the list
> contains partition keys, what is the underlying behaviour with regards to
> atomicity?
>
> DELETE FROM MastersOfTheUniverse WHERE mastersID IN ('Man-At-Arms', 'Teela');
>
>
> Is it going to act like an atomic batch where if one fails, all fail? If
> that is the case, is there any reason to use a BATCH statement with
> multiple single DELETE statement or should we always prefer a DELETE with
> an IN clause?
>
> For example, given 3000 keys for rows I want to delete, should I issue a
> single DELETE query and provide all the keys in the IN argument or should
> I add 3000 DELETE queries to a BATCH statement?
>
> Thank you,
> Sotirios
>
>
>