accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Snappy as default table.file.compress.type?
Date Sun, 14 Aug 2016 03:39:49 GMT
Your argument fails to address the performance benefits. I could pose the
same question back to you: you need to prove why we shouldn't use the
faster compression algorithm.

I don't mean to be snarky, but your argument is shutting down conversation.
I appreciate you sharing the opinion but don't feel like it's encouraging
discussion.

On Aug 13, 2016 11:18 PM, "Adam Fuchs" <afuchs@apache.org> wrote:

> In my experience gz gets roughly 1.5x to 2x better compression than snappy.
> Snappy is definitely not a pareto improvement (although we tend to use
> snappy by default). Since it's not always better I think you would need a
> more solid argument to change the default.
>
> Adam
>
> On Aug 13, 2016 8:06 PM, "Josh Elser" <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Same motivation of using it as for making it the default. I am not aware
> > of any downside to it. It's become pretty standard across all
> installations
> > I've worked with for years.
> >
> > Asking because I am no oracle on the matter. I could just be ignorant of
> > some issue, but, given my current understanding, there is no downside for
> > the average case.
> >
> > Christopher wrote:
> >
> >> 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