I've been thinking about this as well. I'm migrating data from a large Oracle
database, and the RDBMS columns names are descriptive (good) and long (bad).
For now I just keep them when populating Cassandra, but I can shave off
about 30% of storage by hashing names. I don't need any automation and can
just maintain a dictionary of serial numbers to strings and vice versa, it's
still under a 100 items. When you start building inverse indexes and other
auxiliary structures, the size effect may be amiplified.
--
View this message in context:
http://cassandra-user-incubator-apache-org.3065146.n2.nabble.com/Column-name-size-tp6015127p6016109.html
Sent from the cassandra-u...@incubator.apache.org mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
