In 3.x+ the format on disk is the same with compact storage on or off so you shouldn't expect much of a difference in table size with the new storage format compared to compact vs non compact in 2.x.

Chris

On Jan 22, 2019, at 10:21 AM, Nitan Kainth <nitankainth@gmail.com> wrote:

hey Chris,

We upgraded form 3.0.4 to 3.11. yes, I did run upgradesstables -a to migrate sstables. 
Here is the table structure:

CREATE TABLE ks.cf1 ( key text, column1 timestamp, value blob, PRIMARY KEY (key, column1) ) WITH COMPACT STORAGE CREATE TABLE ks.cf2 ( key bigint, column1 text, value blob, PRIMARY KEY (key, column1) ) WITH COMPACT STORAGE CREATE TABLE ks.cf3 ( key text, column1 timestamp, value int, PRIMARY KEY (key, column1) ) WITH COMPACT STORAGE  

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:07 AM Chris Lohfink <clohfink@apple.com.invalid> wrote:
What version are you running? Did you include an upgradesstables -a or something to rebuild without the compact storage in your migration?

After 3.0 the new format can be more or less the same size as the 2.x compact storage tables depending on schema (which can impact things a lot).

Chris

> On Jan 22, 2019, at 9:58 AM, Nitan Kainth <nitankainth@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We are testing to migrate off from compact storage. After removing compact storage, we were hoping to see an increase in disk usage but nothing changed.
> any feedback, why didn't we see an increase in storage?


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@cassandra.apache.org