> > not ready for production use unless users fully understand what they are > doing.
This statement stood out to me - in my opinion we should think carefully about the surface area of the user interfaces on new features before we add more cognitive burden to our users. We already have plenty of "foot-guns" in the project and should only add more if absolutely necessary. Further, marking this as experimental would be another feature we've released and then retroactively marked as experimental; that's a habit we should not get into. On balance, my .02 is the benefits to our end users and operators of getting 4.0 to GA outweigh the costs of flagging this as experimental now so I'm a +1 to the flagging idea, but I think there's some valuable lessons for us to learn in retrospect from not just this feature but others like it in the past. Curious to hear Alex' thoughts about this situation in particular as author of C-10857. I recall that being a pretty painful slog so apologies in advance for picking at this scab. :) On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 9:44 AM Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 4, 2021, 3:53 AM Benjamin Lerer <ble...@apache.org> wrote: > > > 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? > > >
