Thanks a lot Chris.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 11:08 AM Chris Lohfink
wrote:
> In 3.x+ the format on disk is the same with compact storage on or off so
> you shouldn't expect much of a difference in table size with the new
> storage format compared to compact vs non compact in 2.x.
>
> Chris
>
>
In 3.x+ the format on disk is the same with compact storage on or off so you
shouldn't expect much of a difference in table size with the new storage format
compared to compact vs non compact in 2.x.
Chris
> On Jan 22, 2019, at 10:21 AM, Nitan Kainth wrote:
>
> hey Chris,
>
> We upgraded
hey Chris,
We upgraded form 3.0.4 to 3.11. yes, I did run upgradesstables -a to
migrate sstables.
Here is the table structure:
CREATE TABLE ks.cf1 ( key text, column1 timestamp, value blob, PRIMARY KEY
(key, column1) ) WITH COMPACT STORAGE CREATE TABLE ks.cf2 ( key bigint,
column1 text, value
What version are you running? Did you include an upgradesstables -a or
something to rebuild without the compact storage in your migration?
After 3.0 the new format can be more or less the same size as the 2.x compact
storage tables depending on schema (which can impact things a lot).
Chris
>
Hi,
We are testing to migrate off from compact storage. After removing compact
storage, we were hoping to see an increase in disk usage but nothing
changed.
any feedback, why didn't we see an increase in storage?
