[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10995?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15092780#comment-15092780
]
Aleksey Yeschenko commented on CASSANDRA-10995:
-----------------------------------------------
We don't want to measure just on-disk size. I want to see number for reads even
more.
To make a decision as big as this, having representative compressible datasets
(alongside non-compressible ones) is pretty important. But we could start with
what we can generate easily and go from there.
> Consider disabling sstable compression by default in 3.x
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-10995
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10995
> 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|http://www.datastax.com/2015/12/storage-engine-30]
> 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
(v6.3.4#6332)
