Thank you all, for your answers.
On 02/01/2017 01:06 PM, Carlos Rolo wrote: > 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 <http://www.pythian.com/> > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Alain RODRIGUEZ <arodr...@gmail.com > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 <mailto: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/2016/12/08/TWCS-part1.html> >> http://thelastpickle.com/blog/2017/01/10/twcs-part2.html >> <http://thelastpickle.com/blog/2017/01/10/twcs-part2.html> >> >> C*heers, >> ----------------------- >> Alain Rodriguez - @arodream - al...@thelastpickle.com >> <mailto: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 <mailto: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. >> >> >
