Yes.
The block size is specified as part of the compression options for the CF /
Table.
Cheers
-
Aaron Morton
Freelance Cassandra Consultant
New Zealand
@aaronmorton
http://www.thelastpickle.com
On 20/03/2013, at 5:31 AM, Drew Kutcharian wrote:
> Thanks Sylvain. So C* compre
Thanks Sylvain. So C* compression is block based and has nothing to do with
format of the rows.
On Mar 19, 2013, at 1:31 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> That's just describing what compression is about. Compression (not in C*, in
> general) is based on recognizing repeated pattern.
>
> So yes,
That's just describing what compression is about. Compression (not in C*,
in general) is based on recognizing repeated pattern.
So yes, in that sense, static column families are more likely to yield
better compression ratio because it is more likely to have repeated
patterns in the compressed bloc
Edward/Sylvain,
I also came across this post on DataStax's blog:
> When to use compression
> Compression is best suited for ColumnFamilies where there are many rows, with
> each row having the same columns, or at least many columns in common. For
> example, a ColumnFamily containing user data s
I feel this has come up before. I believe the compression is block based,
so just because no two column names are the same does not mean the
compression will not be effective. Possibly in their case the compression
was not effective.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Drew Kutcharian wrote:
> That
That's what I originally thought but the OOYALA presentation from C*2012 got me
confused. Do you guys know what's going on here?
The video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2nGBUuvVmc&feature=player_detailpage#t=790s
The slides: Slide 22 @
http://www.datastax.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/C2012
Imho it is probably more efficient for wide. When you decompress 8k blocks
to get at a 200 byte row you create overhead , particularly young gen.
On Monday, March 18, 2013, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> The way compression is implemented, it is oblivious to the CF being
wide-row or narrow-row. There i
The way compression is implemented, it is oblivious to the CF being
wide-row or narrow-row. There is nothing intrinsically less efficient in
the compression for wide-rows.
--
Sylvain
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Drew Kutcharian wrote:
> Hey Guys,
>
> I remember reading somewhere that C* c
Hey Guys,
I remember reading somewhere that C* compression is not very effective when
most of the CFs are in wide-row format and some folks turn the compression off
and use disk level compression as a workaround. Considering that wide rows with
composites are "first class citizens" in CQL3, is
