2014-08-18 13:25 GMT+02:00 clslrns <vitaly.chir...@flysoft.ru>: > That scheme assumes we have to read counter value before write something to > the timeline. This is what we try to avoid as an anti-pattern.
You can work around the read counter before read, but I agree that it would be much better if disk space was reclaimed after compaction in a more human understandable way. > > By the way, is there any difference between slice trimming of one row and > sharding pattern in terms of compaction? AFAIK, delete with timestamp by > primary key also creates single row tombstone. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://cassandra-user-incubator-apache-org.3065146.n2.nabble.com/disk-space-and-tombstones-tp7596356p7596367.html > Sent from the cassandra-u...@incubator.apache.org mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. >
