Cassandra 1.1 - conflict resolution - any changes ?

[Maciej Miklas <ma...@googlemail.com>]

Hi,

I've seen this blog entry:
http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/schema-in-cassandra-1-1 and I am trying to
understand, how could Cassandra support PRIMARY KEY.

Cassandra has silent conflict resolution, where each insert overwrites next
one, and there are only inserts and deletes - no updates. The last data
version is being resolved first during read - as the latest entry from all
corresponding SS Tables.
Is this still correct in Cassandra 1.1?


Thanks,
Maciej

Re: Cassandra 1.1 - conflict resolution - any changes ?

[Sylvain Lebresne <sy...@datastax.com>]

> On Apr 25, 2012 9:36 AM, "Maciej Miklas" <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've seen this blog entry:
>> http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/schema-in-cassandra-1-1 and I am trying to
>> understand, how could Cassandra support PRIMARY KEY.
>>
>> Cassandra has silent conflict resolution, where each insert overwrites
>> next one, and there are only inserts and deletes - no updates. The last data
>> version is being resolved first during read - as the latest entry from all
>> corresponding SS Tables.
>> Is this still correct in Cassandra 1.1?

It is, but I'll admit I'm not to sure I understand why you think this
is related to (or an obstacle of) the support of PRIMARY KEY by CQL3.

--
Sylvain

Re: Cassandra 1.1 - conflict resolution - any changes ?

[Paolo Bernardi <be...@gmail.com>]

Yes, AFAIK it's still like this (and I don't think that this behavior will
change, you can rely on it).

Paolo
On Apr 25, 2012 9:36 AM, "Maciej Miklas" <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've seen this blog entry:
> http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/schema-in-cassandra-1-1 and I am trying
> to understand, how could Cassandra support PRIMARY KEY.
>
> Cassandra has silent conflict resolution, where each insert overwrites
> next one, and there are only inserts and deletes - no updates. The last
> data version is being resolved first during read - as the latest entry from
> all corresponding SS Tables.
> Is this still correct in Cassandra 1.1?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Maciej
>
>
>