Thanks a lot Chris. On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 11:08 AM Chris Lohfink <clohf...@apple.com.invalid> wrote:
> In 3.x+ the format on disk is the same with compact storage on or off so > you shouldn't expect much of a difference in table size with the new > storage format compared to compact vs non compact in 2.x. > > Chris > > On Jan 22, 2019, at 10:21 AM, Nitan Kainth <nitankai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > hey Chris, > > We upgraded form 3.0.4 to 3.11. yes, I did run upgradesstables -a to > migrate sstables. > Here is the table structure: > > CREATE TABLE ks.cf1 ( key text, column1 timestamp, value blob, PRIMARY KEY > (key, column1) ) WITH COMPACT STORAGE CREATE TABLE ks.cf2 ( key bigint, > column1 text, value blob, PRIMARY KEY (key, column1) ) WITH COMPACT STORAGE > CREATE TABLE ks.cf3 ( key text, column1 timestamp, value int, PRIMARY KEY > (key, column1) ) WITH COMPACT STORAGE > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:07 AM Chris Lohfink <clohf...@apple.com.invalid> > wrote: > >> What version are you running? Did you include an upgradesstables -a or >> something to rebuild without the compact storage in your migration? >> >> After 3.0 the new format can be more or less the same size as the 2.x >> compact storage tables depending on schema (which can impact things a lot). >> >> Chris >> >> > On Jan 22, 2019, at 9:58 AM, Nitan Kainth <nitankai...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > We are testing to migrate off from compact storage. After removing >> compact storage, we were hoping to see an increase in disk usage but >> nothing changed. >> > any feedback, why didn't we see an increase in storage? >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@cassandra.apache.org >> >> >
