Re: Why compacting process uses more data that is expected

Hi Alexander, It would actually be a great improvement for ops if we could add a switch to compactionstats in order to have the compression ratio applied automatically. Yes actually that can be nice. Thank you guys for you reply. I have 34GB in total size of our sstable @Jonathan Haddad. And

Re: Why compacting process uses more data that is expected

Indeed, nodetool compactionstats shows uncompressed sizes. As Oleksandr suggests, use the table compression ratio to compute the actual size on disk. It would actually be a great improvement for ops if we could add a switch to compactionstats in order to have the compression ratio applied

Re: Why compacting process uses more data that is expected

On Jan 4, 2017 17:58, "Jean Carlo" wrote: Hello guys I have a table with 34Gb of data in sstables (including tmp). And I can see cassandra is doing some compactions on it. What surprissed me is that nodetool compactionstats says he is compacting 138.66GB

Re: Why compacting process uses more data that is expected

What's the total size of your sstables on disk? ls -lah /path/to/table/data On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 8:58 AM Jean Carlo wrote: > Hello guys > > I have a table with 34Gb of data in sstables (including tmp). And I can > see cassandra is doing some compactions on it. What

Why compacting process uses more data that is expected

Hello guys I have a table with 34Gb of data in sstables (including tmp). And I can see cassandra is doing some compactions on it. What surprissed me is that nodetool compactionstats says he is compacting 138.66GB root@node001 /root # nodetool compactionstats -H pending tasks: 103 *