Chiming in from the field, I think maintaining the familiar status quo until a panacea compaction strategy proves itself out (could that be UCS?) makes sense to me. I feel it could be maddening to customers if LCS started showing up in schemas after an upgrade just because the default changed. If UCS proves itself as the fits-all solution, then we’d be doing them a favor by making the default. In time.
-Dave David A. Herrington II President and Chief Engineer RhinoSource, Inc. *Data Lake Architecture, Cloud Computing and Advanced Analytics.* www.rhinosource.com On Sat, Dec 7, 2024 at 7:32 PM Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 7, 2024, at 7:08 PM, Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: > > Chiming in with my two cents… > > > When people have the luxury of working in environments where clusters are >> massively over provisioned, LCS as a default makes a lot of sense, because >> there's not much downside. The use cases where you'd actually fall behind >> in compaction are pretty slim, so the negative impact isn't felt. >> >> Most people aren't doing this. Putting LCS as the default significantly >> changes the performance profile of new clusters in a way that actively >> harms a portion of the community. >> > > > Haddad's statement here resonates above everything else that's been said > so far. It is this particular audience that I'm thinking first about not > screwing over, everyone else is a step in front of them wrt knowing what > compaction is and making an informed decision into changing it. > > > “You have to over-provision (iops) to use LCS” isn’t that different from > “you have to over-provision (space) to use LCS” (by perhaps 50%). > > Both of them are sub-optimal and you’re trading off either extra space or > extra compute/ops. > > >
