To reinforce Alain statement: "I would say that the unsafe part is more about using C* 3.9" this is key. You would be better on 3.0.x unless you need features on the 3.x series.
Regards, Carlos Juzarte Rolo Cassandra Consultant / Datastax Certified Architect / Cassandra MVP Pythian - Love your data rolo@pythian | Twitter: @cjrolo | Skype: cjr2k3 | Linkedin: *linkedin.com/in/carlosjuzarterolo <http://linkedin.com/in/carlosjuzarterolo>* Mobile: +351 918 918 100 www.pythian.com On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Alain RODRIGUEZ <arodr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is it safe to use TWCS in C* 3.9? > > > I would say that the unsafe part is more about using C* 3.9 than using > TWCS in C*3.9 :-). I see no reason to say 3.9 would be specifically unsafe > in C*3.9, but I might be missing something. > > Going from STCS to TWCS is often smooth, from LCS you might expect an > extra load compacting a lot (all?) of the SSTable from what we saw from the > field. In this case, be sure that your compaction options are safe enough > to handle this. > > TWCS is even easier to use on C*3.0.8+ and C*3.8+ as it became the new > default replacing TWCS, so no extra jar is needed, you can enable TWCS as > any other default compaction strategy. > > C*heers, > ----------------------- > Alain Rodriguez - @arodream - al...@thelastpickle.com > France > > The Last Pickle - Apache Cassandra Consulting > http://www.thelastpickle.com > > 2017-01-31 23:29 GMT+01:00 Cogumelos Maravilha <cogumelosmaravi...@sapo.pt > >: > >> Hi Alain, >> >> Thanks for your response and the links. >> >> I've also checked "Time series data model and tombstones". >> >> Is it safe to use TWCS in C* 3.9? >> >> Thanks in advance. >> >> On 31-01-2017 11:27, Alain RODRIGUEZ wrote: >> >> Is there a overhead using line by line option or wasted disk space? >>> >>> There is a very recent topic about that in the mailing list, look for "Time >> series data model and tombstones". I believe DuyHai answer your question >> there with more details :). >> >> *tl;dr:* >> >> Yes, if you know the TTL in advance, and it is fixed, you might want to >> go with the table option instead of adding the TTL in each insert. Also you >> might want consider using TWCS compaction strategy. >> >> Here are some blogposts my coworkers recently wrote about TWCS, it might >> be useful: >> >> http://thelastpickle.com/blog/2016/12/08/TWCS-part1.html >> http://thelastpickle.com/blog/2017/01/10/twcs-part2.html >> >> C*heers, >> ----------------------- >> Alain Rodriguez - @arodream - al...@thelastpickle.com >> France >> >> The Last Pickle - Apache Cassandra Consulting >> http://www.thelastpickle.com >> >> >> >> 2017-01-31 10:43 GMT+01:00 Cogumelos Maravilha < >> cogumelosmaravi...@sapo.pt>: >> >>> Hi I'm just wondering what option is fastest: >>> >>> Global:*create table xxx (.....**AND **default_time_to_live = **XXX**;** >>> and**UPDATE xxx USING TTL XXX;* >>> >>> Line by line: >>> *INSERT INTO xxx (...** USING TTL xxx;* >>> >>> Is there a overhead using line by line option or wasted disk space? >>> >>> Thanks in advance. >>> >>> >> >> > -- --
