The secondary index CF's are marked as no longer required / marked as compacted. under 1.x they would then be deleted reasonably quickly, and definitely deleted after a restart.
Is there a zero length .Compacted file there ? > Also, when adding a new node to the ring the new node will build indexes for > the ones that supposedly don’t exist any longer. Is this supposed to happen? > Would this have happened if I had deleted the old SSTables from the > previously existing nodes? Check you have a consistent schema using describe cluster in the CLI. And check the schema is what you think it is using show schema. Another trick is to do a snapshot. Only the files in use are included the snapshot. Hope that helps. ----------------- Aaron Morton Freelance Developer @aaronmorton http://www.thelastpickle.com On 2/03/2012, at 2:53 AM, Frisch, Michael wrote: > I have a few column families that I decided to get rid of the secondary > indexes on. I see that there aren’t any new index SSTables being created, > but all of the old ones remain (some from as far back as September). Is it > safe to just delete then when the node is offline? Should I run clean-up or > scrub? > > Also, when adding a new node to the ring the new node will build indexes for > the ones that supposedly don’t exist any longer. Is this supposed to happen? > Would this have happened if I had deleted the old SSTables from the > previously existing nodes? > > The nodes in question have either been upgraded from v0.8.1 => v1.0.2 > (scrubbed at this time) => v1.0.6 or from v1.0.2 => v1.0.6. The secondary > index was dropped when the nodes were version 1.0.6. The new node added was > also 1.0.6. > > - Mike
