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-Hastur-NoahGibbs.pdf -- Drew On Mar 18, 2013, at 6:14 AM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 <sylv...@datastax.com> wrote: > > 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 <d...@venarc.com> wrote: > >> > >> 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 this still the case? Has there been any improvements on this? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Drew > >
