+1, thank you Benjamin! There is already a warning in the docs but marking it as experimental sounds more reasonable at this point. Thank you for all your investigations and work done
On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 5:43, bened...@apache.org <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > This seems reasonable to me, but it raises a question of roadmap. My > understanding is that we are deprecating compact storage, and will remove > it in a future release (or have already partially removed it? I forget). Do > these issues then constitute a blocking issue for GA, or do we modify our > roadmap, or do we stipulate that users must upgrade to a future patch > version of 4.0 before going to 4.next/5.0? > > > From: Benjamin Lerer <ble...@apache.org> > Date: Friday, 4 June 2021 at 09:53 > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <dev@cassandra.apache.org> > Subject: [DISCUSSION] Should we mark DROP COMPACT STORAGE as experimental > Hi everybody, > > There are a significant amount of issues with DROP COMPACT STORAGE that can > be pretty surprising for users. > To name a few: > * Some hidden columns will show up changing the resultset returned for > wildcard queries > * As COMPACT tables did not have primary key liveness there empty rows > inserted AFTER the ALTER will be returned whereas the one inserted before > the ALTER will not. > * Also due to the lack of primary key liveness the amount of SSTables being > read will increase resulting in slower queries > * After DROP COMPACT it becomes possible to ALTER the table in a way that > makes all the row disappears > * There is a loss of functionality around null clustering when dropping > compact storage (CASSANDRA-16069) > > In my opinion DROP COMPACT STORAGE is not ready for production use unless > users fully understand what they are doing. > By consequence, I am wondering if we should not mark it as experimental as > we did for the Materialized Views (CASSANDRA-13959). > > What is your opinion? >
