Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <57AFDBA6.10308@gmail.com> <CAL5zq9Y1D_aW6zaWXojW8vq_VeMJ+GitYSU9pf0QBH7A3465zQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <57AFDE8A.9030408@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <57AFDE8A.9030408@gmail.com>
From: Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 03:04:12 +0000
Message-ID: <CAL5zq9ZVgSWWuLRWEdNn8eJJEd++rFnz-ozcxKOPcNeP=Vvqiw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Snappy as default table.file.compress.type?
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c05602e5619ed0539ff5f79
archived-at: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 03:04:25 -0000

--94eb2c05602e5619ed0539ff5f79
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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
> >>
> >
>

--94eb2c05602e5619ed0539ff5f79--