On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Michael Dürig <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd leave the default as it is for Oak as this has the beauty of simplicity. > We could just change it for applications where we know that the inline > storing of binaries is troublesome.
Ack. Yes default setup should not be modified > OTOH in the longer term we should address the underlying issue and get > compaction to work properly. If changing the default helps us with that (i.e. > giving us some air to breath, gain additional information), I'm all in favour > of such a move. Thats what I intended with the proposal > Do we have enough evidence backing those claims or is this just what we would > reasonable expect? I.e. if we see that such a change would reduce growth to > an acceptable rate, +1. Otherwise let's gather that evidence ;-) So far its theory and theories might go wrong ;) Opened OAK-2082 to get evidence. Would followup once I have some results Chetan Mehrotra
