Re: COMPACT STORAGE in 4.0?

[Benedict Elliott Smith]

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 statement on this efficiency question
> in the spec/doc since the spec currently does say: "The option also
> *provides
> a slightly more compact layout of data on disk* but at the price of
> diminished flexibility and extensibility for the table." So, if that
> "slightly
> more compact layout of data on disk" benefit is no longer true, away with
> it. See:
> https://cassandra.apache.org/doc/cql3/CQL-3.0.html
>
> And I would recommend that your own statement be added there instead.
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Jeremiah Jordan 
> wrote:
>
> > 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 <
> bened...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 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
> > > "compact storage"
> > >
> > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 at 15:04, Jack Krupansky  >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> My understanding is Thrift is being removed from Cassandra in 4.0, but
> > will
> > >> COMPACT STORAGE be removed as well? Clearly the two are related, but
> > >> COMPACT STORAGE had a performance advantage in addition to Thrift
> > >> compatibility, so its status is ambiguous.
> > >>
> > >> I recall vague chatter, but no explicit deprecation notice or 4.0 plan
> > for
> > >> removal of COMPACT STORAGE. Actually, I don't even see a deprecation
> > notice
> > >> for Thrift itself in CHANGES.txt.
> > >>
> > >> Will a table with only a single non-PK column automatically be
> > implemented
> > >> at a comparable level of efficiency compared to the old/current
> Compact
> > >> STORAGE? That will still leave the question of how to migrate a
> > non-Thrift
> > >> COMPACT STORAGE table (i.e., used for performance by a CQL-oriented
> > >> developer rather than Thrift compatibility per se) to pure CQL.
> > >>
> > >> -- Jack Krupansky
> > >>
> >
>

Re: COMPACT STORAGE in 4.0?

[Jack Krupansky]

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 layout of data on disk* but at the price of
diminished flexibility and extensibility for the table." So, if that "slightly
more compact layout of data on disk" benefit is no longer true, away with
it. See:
https://cassandra.apache.org/doc/cql3/CQL-3.0.html

And I would recommend that your own statement be added there instead.

-- Jack Krupansky

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Jeremiah Jordan 
wrote:

> 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 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
> > "compact storage"
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 at 15:04, Jack Krupansky 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> My understanding is Thrift is being removed from Cassandra in 4.0, but
> will
> >> COMPACT STORAGE be removed as well? Clearly the two are related, but
> >> COMPACT STORAGE had a performance advantage in addition to Thrift
> >> compatibility, so its status is ambiguous.
> >>
> >> I recall vague chatter, but no explicit deprecation notice or 4.0 plan
> for
> >> removal of COMPACT STORAGE. Actually, I don't even see a deprecation
> notice
> >> for Thrift itself in CHANGES.txt.
> >>
> >> Will a table with only a single non-PK column automatically be
> implemented
> >> at a comparable level of efficiency compared to the old/current Compact
> >> STORAGE? That will still leave the question of how to migrate a
> non-Thrift
> >> COMPACT STORAGE table (i.e., used for performance by a CQL-oriented
> >> developer rather than Thrift compatibility per se) to pure CQL.
> >>
> >> -- Jack Krupansky
> >>
>

Re: COMPACT STORAGE in 4.0?

[Jeremiah Jordan]

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 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
> "compact storage"
> 
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 at 15:04, Jack Krupansky 
> wrote:
> 
>> My understanding is Thrift is being removed from Cassandra in 4.0, but will
>> COMPACT STORAGE be removed as well? Clearly the two are related, but
>> COMPACT STORAGE had a performance advantage in addition to Thrift
>> compatibility, so its status is ambiguous.
>> 
>> I recall vague chatter, but no explicit deprecation notice or 4.0 plan for
>> removal of COMPACT STORAGE. Actually, I don't even see a deprecation notice
>> for Thrift itself in CHANGES.txt.
>> 
>> Will a table with only a single non-PK column automatically be implemented
>> at a comparable level of efficiency compared to the old/current Compact
>> STORAGE? That will still leave the question of how to migrate a non-Thrift
>> COMPACT STORAGE table (i.e., used for performance by a CQL-oriented
>> developer rather than Thrift compatibility per se) to pure CQL.
>> 
>> -- Jack Krupansky
>> 

Re: COMPACT STORAGE in 4.0?

[Benedict Elliott Smith]

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
"compact storage"

On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 at 15:04, Jack Krupansky 
wrote:

> My understanding is Thrift is being removed from Cassandra in 4.0, but will
> COMPACT STORAGE be removed as well? Clearly the two are related, but
> COMPACT STORAGE had a performance advantage in addition to Thrift
> compatibility, so its status is ambiguous.
>
> I recall vague chatter, but no explicit deprecation notice or 4.0 plan for
> removal of COMPACT STORAGE. Actually, I don't even see a deprecation notice
> for Thrift itself in CHANGES.txt.
>
> Will a table with only a single non-PK column automatically be implemented
> at a comparable level of efficiency compared to the old/current Compact
> STORAGE? That will still leave the question of how to migrate a non-Thrift
> COMPACT STORAGE table (i.e., used for performance by a CQL-oriented
> developer rather than Thrift compatibility per se) to pure CQL.
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>