accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adam Fuchs <afu...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Snappy as default table.file.compress.type?
Date Sun, 14 Aug 2016 03:18:01 GMT
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