Re: CQL 3.x Update ...USING TIMESTAMP...

[Sachin Nikam <sk...@gmail.com>]

@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 <sk...@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/>
>