Posted by Alexander Staubo <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Jonathan Ellis<jb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Matt Revelle<mr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Cassandra only supports one table per instance (before today?). However, as
>> Jonathan mentioned previously, what you consider to be tables are
>> represented as column families in Cassandra.
>
> See, this is why I suggested renaming <table> -- _everyone_ who hasn't
> read the Bigtable paper (which is increasingly approaching 100% of new
> users) makes this mistake.
I have read the Bigtable paper, and I'm not making any mistake. The
paper consistently refers to its structures as "tables". In fact, it
occasionally uses the term "bigtable" to refer to such tables; quoth
page one: "A Bigtable is a sparse, distributed, persistent
multidimensional sorted map."
> Namespace just implies "keys in one namespace/table won't conflict
> with keys in another" which is exactly right. (And maybe it's a
> slight abuse of the term to add options like key ordering there but
> the more important Big Picture connotation is correct.)
It's precisely this abuse confirms that the name "namespace" is inappropriate.
To explicate on my earlier argument, here are a few other things that
I consider to be part of a table/namespace/whatchamacallit:
* Column families. Each table have different, differently-named families.
* Replication factor. I should be able to define different replication
factors for different tables.
* Key ordering. Ditto.
* Data locations. In a server environment I might want table A to be
on /dev/sda, but table B on /dev/sdb for performance reasons.
* Storage mechanisms. Maybe one day Cassandra will support pluggable storages.
* Indexing and query semantics. At the moment Cassandra has limited
native indexing for performing SQL-like queries, but future support is
probably not out of the question?
All of these features are aspects of a kind of logical-physical
separation that deserves a better name than "namespace". I like
"table" because it fits; Cassandra is, after all, a sort of abstract
multidimensional hash table. The fact that Cassandra isn't *just* a
"table", but in fact a table of tables (of tables, potentially) does
not alter this fact.
A namespace is a space of names. It's a space where names live.
Nothing other than names live there. The sentence, "then we store the
key in the namespace" makes no sense. The thing we're talking about is
not primarily about names but about storing information. In that sense
you could call it a database, a container, a repository -- or a table,
since that's pretty much what it is. It's a table which incidentally
provides a namespace.
A.
Re: proposal: rename
to
Posted by Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com>.
For those who don't follow -users,
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Matt Revelle<mr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cassandra only supports one table per instance (before today?). However, as
> Jonathan mentioned previously, what you consider to be tables are
> represented as column families in Cassandra.
See, this is why I suggested renaming <table> -- _everyone_ who hasn't
read the Bigtable paper (which is increasingly approaching 100% of new
users) makes this mistake.
-Jonathan
Re: proposal: rename
to
Posted by Jonathan Ellis <jb...@gmail.com>.
I guess the Nays have it. So that is what I will do.
-Jonathan
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Ian Holsman<ia...@holsman.net> wrote:
> if you don't change it from table, what about putting a huge comment in the
> config file with the FAQ entry in it.
>
> On 21/06/2009, at 9:32 AM, Sandeep Tata wrote:
>
>> I'd like for us to continue with "Table" as well.
>> I agree with Alexander's argument for what "namespaces" mean for most
>> CS domains.
>>
>> Moving up a notch to a "database" is also confusing (Do we also have
>> tables? Are there tablespaces? Different storage engines for each
>> tablespace?)
>>
>> We'll have to think of new names for columns and supercolumns too ---
>> I'd rather we stayed with "Table"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Chris Goffinet<cg...@chrisgoffinet.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think we should keep it as 'table'. It's understood everywhere. I've
>>> always even heard BigTable call it a Table? I think namespace might just
>>> be
>>> more confusing.
>>>
>>> On Jun 20, 2009, at 6:54 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since we're proposing things that break stuff this weekend... :)
>>>>
>>>> I think we should rename table to namespace in the config file.
>>>> Calling it "table" confuses people coming from an rdbms background
>>>> (i.e. just about everyone).
>>>>
>>>> -Jonathan
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Ian Holsman
> Ian@Holsman.net
>
>
>
>
Re: proposal: rename
to
Posted by Ian Holsman <ia...@holsman.net>.
if you don't change it from table, what about putting a huge comment
in the config file with the FAQ entry in it.
On 21/06/2009, at 9:32 AM, Sandeep Tata wrote:
> I'd like for us to continue with "Table" as well.
> I agree with Alexander's argument for what "namespaces" mean for most
> CS domains.
>
> Moving up a notch to a "database" is also confusing (Do we also have
> tables? Are there tablespaces? Different storage engines for each
> tablespace?)
>
> We'll have to think of new names for columns and supercolumns too ---
> I'd rather we stayed with "Table"
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Chris
> Goffinet<cg...@chrisgoffinet.com> wrote:
>> I think we should keep it as 'table'. It's understood everywhere.
>> I've
>> always even heard BigTable call it a Table? I think namespace might
>> just be
>> more confusing.
>>
>> On Jun 20, 2009, at 6:54 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>>
>>> Since we're proposing things that break stuff this weekend... :)
>>>
>>> I think we should rename table to namespace in the config file.
>>> Calling it "table" confuses people coming from an rdbms background
>>> (i.e. just about everyone).
>>>
>>> -Jonathan
>>
>>
--
Ian Holsman
Ian@Holsman.net
Re: proposal: rename
to
Posted by Sandeep Tata <sa...@gmail.com>.
I'd like for us to continue with "Table" as well.
I agree with Alexander's argument for what "namespaces" mean for most
CS domains.
Moving up a notch to a "database" is also confusing (Do we also have
tables? Are there tablespaces? Different storage engines for each
tablespace?)
We'll have to think of new names for columns and supercolumns too ---
I'd rather we stayed with "Table"
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Chris Goffinet<cg...@chrisgoffinet.com> wrote:
> I think we should keep it as 'table'. It's understood everywhere. I've
> always even heard BigTable call it a Table? I think namespace might just be
> more confusing.
>
> On Jun 20, 2009, at 6:54 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>
>> Since we're proposing things that break stuff this weekend... :)
>>
>> I think we should rename table to namespace in the config file.
>> Calling it "table" confuses people coming from an rdbms background
>> (i.e. just about everyone).
>>
>> -Jonathan
>
>
Re: proposal: rename
to
Posted by Chris Goffinet <cg...@chrisgoffinet.com>.
I think we should keep it as 'table'. It's understood everywhere. I've
always even heard BigTable call it a Table? I think namespace might
just be more confusing.
On Jun 20, 2009, at 6:54 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> Since we're proposing things that break stuff this weekend... :)
>
> I think we should rename table to namespace in the config file.
> Calling it "table" confuses people coming from an rdbms background
> (i.e. just about everyone).
>
> -Jonathan