Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rcoli@eventbrite.com designates
 209.85.128.48 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPzUSDth58VogKU+wFO2Y=2kfRWRQF+ut_R2vDc-kO=+jrpFEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAPzUSDth58VogKU+wFO2Y=2kfRWRQF+ut_R2vDc-kO=+jrpFEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 16:55:09 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAEDUwd2ypgmRg_Rzc4atacyQ6ULbfu2ByAWZGeF5hBhXdy2n+A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Cassandra 1.2.5 which compressor is better?
From: Robert Coli <rcoli@eventbrite.com>
To: "user@cassandra.apache.org" <user@cassandra.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3e84c371b6704e38c8164

--001a11c3e84c371b6704e38c8164
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 4:43 PM, rash aroskar <rashmi.aroskar@gmail.com>wrote:

> I am setting up new cluster for cassandra 1.2.5, and first time using
> cassandra compression.
> I read about the compressors, and it gathered Snappy Compressor gives
> better compression but is sslightly slower than LZ4 compressor. Just wanted
> to know your experience and/or opinions as to *Snappy vs LZ4 , which
> compressor is better in case of huge data, less writes but lots of reads.*
>
>

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-5038

In general LZ4 is supposed to be better than Snappy, which is why it was
added. The LZ4 site (iirc?) has some charts explaining its performance
compared to Snappy in various cases. There's also the charts at
https://github.com/ning/jvm-compressor-benchmark/wiki.

=Rob

--001a11c3e84c371b6704e38c8164
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 4:43 PM, rash aroskar <span dir=3D"=
ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:rashmi.aroskar@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">rash=
mi.aroskar@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_quote">
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;p=
adding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>I am setting up new cluster for cass=
andra 1.2.5, and first time using cassandra compression.=A0</div>
<div>I read about the compressors, and it gathered Snappy Compressor gives =
better compression but is sslightly slower than LZ4 compressor. Just wanted=
 to know your experience and/or opinions as to <b>Snappy vs LZ4 , which com=
pressor is better in case of huge data, less writes but lots of reads.</b>=
=A0</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><pre style=3D"white-space:pre-wrap;c=
olor:rgb(0,0,0)"><a href=3D"https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA=
-5038">https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-5038</a></pre></div>
<div style>In general LZ4 is supposed to be better than Snappy, which is wh=
y it was added. The LZ4 site (iirc?) has some charts explaining its perform=
ance compared to Snappy in various cases. There&#39;s also the charts at=A0=
<a href=3D"https://github.com/ning/jvm-compressor-benchmark/wiki">https://g=
ithub.com/ning/jvm-compressor-benchmark/wiki</a>.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>=3DRob=A0</div></div></div></div>

--001a11c3e84c371b6704e38c8164--