accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Snappy as default table.file.compress.type?
Date Sun, 14 Aug 2016 03:04:12 GMT
Sorry. I wasn't clear. I understand the motivation for using it... I'm
asking about the motivation for making it the default.

Since both are available, I'm not sure the default matters *that* much, but
it could be an unexpected change for those preferring GZ.

Also, are there any risks regarding library availability of snappy? GZ is
pretty ubiquitous.

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 10:59 PM Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:

> Uhh, besides what I already mentioned? (close in compressed size but
> "much" faster)
>
> Christopher wrote:
> > What's the motivation for changing it?
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 10:47 PM Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Any reason we don't want to do this? Last rule-of-thumb I heard was that
> >> snappy is often close enough in compression to GZ but quite a bit faster
> >> (I don't remember exactly how much).
> >>
> >> - Josh
> >>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message