As Jeremiah indicates, it's 3.0+ only. The docs should definitely reflect
this
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 at 16:21, Jack Krupansky
wrote:
> Thanks, Benedict. Is this only true as of 3.x (new storage engine), or was
> the equivalent efficiency also true with 2.x?
>
> It would be good to have an explicit
Thanks, Benedict. Is this only true as of 3.x (new storage engine), or was
the equivalent efficiency also true with 2.x?
It would be good to have an explicit statement on this efficiency question
in the spec/doc since the spec currently does say: "The option also *provides
a slightly more compact
As I understand it "COMPACT STORAGE" only has meaning in the CQL parser for
backwards compatibility as of 3.0. The on disk storage is not affected by its
usage.
> On Apr 11, 2016, at 3:33 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith
> wrote:
>
> Compact storage should really have been named "not wasteful stora
Compact storage should really have been named "not wasteful storage" - now
everything is "not wasteful storage" so it's void of meaning. This is true
without constraint. You do not need to limit yourself to a single non-PK
column; you can have many and it will remain as or more efficient than
"comp
