Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> My concerns with Cassandra are precisely here: this is easy to misuse it.

You get this massively scalable (to thousands of nodes and tens of millions of operations per second) database for free, and all you have to do is have your developers read about it before they use it. Is that expecting too much?

Let me ask this, then:

It's an OSS project. Let's pretend I'm a committer or on the PMC, and I'd like to fix this in a way that works for you. We need a null write to act as a delete. We need tombstones to make sure things that are meant to be deleted stay deleted. We have to have all the tombstones we scan in heap on reads to reconcile what's deleted and what's not deleted within a partition on any given slice query.

What would you want to see changed to avoid the tombstone problem? There are dozens of blogs around that say "dont write null values if you dont want a tombstone to be created" (like this article, or [0]), but beyond that, do you expect to see errors in logs?

We've made unbound values in prepared statements no longer equivalent to null/delete [1].

What else would you expect an OSS project to do to protect you from abusing it? Serious question.

0: http://thelastpickle.com/blog/2016/09/15/Null-bindings-on-pr... 1: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7304

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact