cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jim Witschey (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-10995) Consider disabling sstable compression by default in 3.x
Date Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:34:39 GMT


Jim Witschey commented on CASSANDRA-10995:

[~iamaleksey] Jake had a good suggestion for getting more compressible sstables out of {{cassandra-stress}}:
decrease the size of the population from which to insert. I'm working on determining if data
generated like that actually does compress more than stress's default randomly-generated data,
but if it does, do you think that would that be a reasonable proxy for a normal dataset w.r.t.

> Consider disabling sstable compression by default in 3.x
> --------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-10995
>                 URL:
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Aleksey Yeschenko
>            Assignee: Jim Witschey
> With the new sstable format introduced in CASSANDRA-8099, it's very likely that enabled
sstable compression is no longer the right default option.
> [~slebresne]'s [blog post|] on the new
storage engine has some comparison numbers for 2.2/3.0, with and without compression that
show that in many cases compression no longer has a significant effect on sstable sizes -
all while sill consuming extra resources for both writes (compression) and reads (decompression).
> We should run a comprehensive set of benchmarks to determine whether or not compression
should be switched to 'off' now in 3.x.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message