Yes, agreed. I actually think cassandra has to.
And if you do not go down to that single file, how do you avoid getting into a situation where you can very realistically end up with 4-5 big sstables each having its own copy of the same data massively increasing disk requirements? Terje On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 5:58 PM, David Boxenhorn <da...@taotown.com> wrote: > "I'm also not too much in favor of triggering major compactions, because it > mostly have a nasty effect (create one huge sstable)." > > If that is the case, why can't major compactions create many, > non-overlapping SSTables? > > In general, it seems to me that non-overlapping SSTables have all the > advantages of big SSTables (i.e. you know exactly where the data is) without > the disadvantages that come with being big. Why doesn't Cassandra take > advantage of that in a major way? >
