Is it possible to have a timestamp column in a table with the default value of now, such that only the other fields are introduced?
No, There is no way to set default value in cassandra.
You must provide value or use toUnixTimestamp(now()) when inserting.
Example :
CREATE TABLE sample_times (
a int,
b timestamp,
c timeuuid,
d bigint,
PRIMARY KEY (a,b,c,d)
);
Example Insert :
INSERT INTO sample_times (a,b,c,d) VALUES (1, toUnixTimestamp(now()), 50554d6e-29bb-11e5-b345-feff819cdc9f, 10);
Related
I am trying to "Upsert" data into my table with CQLSSTableWriter. Everything works fine, except for my static column not being set correctly. They end up being null for every occasion. My static column is defined as brand TEXT static.
After failing with the CQLSSTableWriter, I went into the cqlsh and tried to update the static column manually:
update keyspace.data set brand='Nestle' where id = 'whatever' and date = '2015-10-07';
and with a batch as well (even though it should not matter)
begin batch
update keyspace.data set brand='Nestle' where id = 'whatever' and date = '2015-10-07';
apply batch;
My "brand" column still shows null when I retrieve some of my data (select * from keyspace.data LIMIT 100;)
My entire schema:
CREATE TABLE keyspace.data (
id text,
date text,
ts timestamp,
id_two text,
brand text static,
latitude double,
longitude double,
signals_double map<text, double>,
signals_string map<text, text>,
name text static,
PRIMARY KEY ((id, date), ts, id_two)
) WITH CLUSTERING ORDER BY (ts ASC, id_two ASC);
The reason why I chose Update instead of Insert is because I have collections that I do not want to overwrite, but rather add more elements to. Using insert would overwrite the previously stored elements of my collections.
Why can I not set a static column with an Update query?
I'm working on Cassandra, trying to get to know how it works. Encountered something strange while using IN operator. Example:
Table:
CREATE TABLE test_time (
name text,
age int,
time timeuuid,
"timestamp" timestamp,
PRIMARY KEY ((name, age), time)
)
I have inserted few dummy data. Used IN operator as follows:
SELECT * from test_time
where name="9" and age=81
and time IN (c7c88000-190e-11e4-8000-000000000000, c7c88000-190e-11e4-7000-000000000000);
It worked properly.
Then, added a column of type Map. Table will look like:
CREATE TABLE test_time (
name text,
age int,
time timeuuid,
name_age map<text, int>,
"timestamp" timestamp,
PRIMARY KEY ((name, age), time)
)
On executing same query, I got following error:
Bad Request: Cannot restrict PRIMARY KEY part time by IN relation as a collection is selected by the query
From the above examples, we can say, IN operator doesn't work if there are any column of type collection(Map or List) in the table.
I don't understand why it behaves like this. Please let me know If I'm missing anything here. Thanks in advance.
Yup...that is a limitation. You can do the following:
select * from ...where name='9' and age=81 and time > x and time < y
select [columns except collection] from ...where name='9' and age=81 and time in (...)
You can then filter client side, or do another query.
You can either include your column as a part of partitioning expression in the primary key
CREATE TABLE test_time (
name text,
age int,
time timeuuid,
"timestamp" timestamp,
PRIMARY KEY ((name, time), age)
);
or create a separate Materialized View to satisfy your query requirements:
CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW test_time_mv AS
SELECT * FROM test_time
WHERE name IS NOT NULL AND time IS NOT NULL AND age IS NOT NULL
PRIMARY KEY ((name, time), age);
Now use the Materialized View in your query instead of the base table:
SELECT * from test_time_mv
where name='9'
and age=81
and time IN (c7c88000-190e-11e4-8000-000000000000,
c7c88000-190e-11e4-7000-000000000000);
I have columnfamily with composite key like this
CREATE TABLE sometable(
keya varchar,
keyb varchar,
keyc varchar,
keyd varchar,
value int,
date timestamp,
PRIMARY KEY (keya,keyb,keyc,keyd,date)
);
What I need to do is to
SELECT * FROM sometable
WHERE
keya = 'abc' AND
keyb = 'def' AND
date < '2014-01-01'
And that is giving me this error
Bad Request: PRIMARY KEY part date cannot be restricted (preceding part keyd is either not restricted or by a non-EQ relation)
What's the best way to solve this? Do I need to alter my columnfamily?
I also need to query those table with all keya, keyb, keyc, and date.
You cannot do it in cassandra. Moreover, such a range slicing is costlier too. You are trying to slice through a set of equalities that have the lower priority according to your schema.
I also need to query those table with all keya, keyb, keyc, and date.
If you are considering to solve this problem, considering having this schema. What i would suggest is to have the keys in a separate schema
create table (
timeuuid id,
keyType text,
primary key (timeuuid,keyType))
Use the timeuuid to store the values and do a range scan based on that.
create table(
timeuuid prevTableId,
value int,
date timestamp,
primary key(prevTableId,date))
Guess , in this way, your table is normalized for better scalability in your use case and may save a lot of disk space if keys are repetitive too.
We are trying to store lots of attributes for a particular profile_id inside a table (using CQL3) and cannot wrap our heads around which approach is the best:
a. create table mytable (profile_id, a1 int, a2 int, a3 int, a4 int ... a3000 int) primary key (profile_id);
OR
b. create MANY tables, eg.
create table mytable_a1(profile_id, value int) primary key (profile_id);
create table mytable_a2(profile_id, value int) primary key (profile_id);
...
create table mytable_a3000(profile_id, value int) primary key (profile_id);
OR
c. create table mytable (profile_id, a_all text) primary key (profile_id);
and just store 3000 "columns" inside a_all, like:
insert into mytable (profile_id, a_all) values (1, "a1:1,a2:5,a3:55, .... a3000:5");
OR
d. none of the above
The type of query we would be running on this table:
select * from mytable where profile_id in (1,2,3,4,5423,44)
We tried the first approach and the queries keep timing out and sometimes even kill cassandra nodes.
The answer would be to use a clustering column. A clustering column allows you to create dynamic columns that you could use to hold the attribute name (col name) and it's value (col value).
The table would be
create table mytable (
profile_id text,
attr_name text,
attr_value int,
PRIMARY KEY(profile_id, attr_name)
)
This allows you to add inserts like
insert into mytable (profile_id, attr_name, attr_value) values ('131', 'a1', 3);
insert into mytable (profile_id, attr_name, attr_value) values ('131', 'a2', 1031);
.....
insert into mytable (profile_id, attr_name, attr_value) values ('131', 'an', 2);
This would be the optimal solution.
Because you then want to do the following
'The type of query we would be running on this table: select * from mytable where profile_id in (1,2,3,4,5423,44)'
This would require 6 queries under the hood but cassandra should be able to do this in no time especially if you have a multi node cluster.
Also if you use the DataStax Java Driver you can run this requests asynchronously and concurrently on your cluster.
For more on data modelling and the DataStax Java Driver check out DataStax's free online training. Its worth a look
http://www.datastax.com/what-we-offer/products-services/training/virtual-training
Hope it helps.
I'm trying to understand the type used when I create composite columns.
I'm using CQL3 (via cqlsh) to create the CF and then the CLI to issue a describe command.
The Types in the Columns sorted by: ...CompositeType(Type1,Type2,...) are not the ones I'm expecting.
I'm using Cassandra 1.1.6.
CREATE TABLE CompKeyTest1 (
KeyA int,
KeyB int,
KeyC int,
MyData varchar,
PRIMARY KEY (KeyA, KeyB, KeyC)
);
The returned CompositeType is
CompositeType(Int32,Int32,UTF8)
Shouldn't it be (Int32,Int32,Int32)?
CREATE TABLE CompKeyTest2 (
KeyA int,
KeyB varchar,
KeyC int,
MyData varchar,
PRIMARY KEY (KeyA, KeyB, KeyC)
);
The returned CompositeType is
CompositeType(UTF8,Int32,UTF8)
Why isn't it the same as the types used when I define the table? I'm probably missing something basic in the type assignment...
Thanks!
The composite column name is composed of the values of primary keys 2...n and the name of the non-primary key column being saved.
(So if you have 5 non-key fields then you'll have five such columns and their column names will differ only in the last composed value which would be the non-key field name.)
So in both examples the composite column is made up of the values of KeyB, KeyC and the name of the column being stored ("MyData", in both cases). That's why you're seeing those CompositeTypes being returned.
(btw, the first key in the primary key is the partitioning key and its value is only used as the row key (if you're familiar with Cassandra under the covers). It is not used as part of any of the composite column names.)