[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10995?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15096640#comment-15096640 ]
Jim Witschey commented on CASSANDRA-10995: ------------------------------------------ [~iamaleksey] Jake had a good suggestion for getting more compressible sstables out of {{cassandra-stress}}: decrease the size of the population from which to insert. I'm working on determining if data generated like that actually does compress more than stress's default randomly-generated data, but if it does, do you think that would that be a reasonable proxy for a normal dataset w.r.t. compression? > Consider disabling sstable compression by default in 3.x > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CASSANDRA-10995 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10995 > Project: Cassandra > Issue Type: Improvement > Reporter: Aleksey Yeschenko > Assignee: Jim Witschey > > With the new sstable format introduced in CASSANDRA-8099, it's very likely > that enabled sstable compression is no longer the right default option. > [~slebresne]'s [blog post|http://www.datastax.com/2015/12/storage-engine-30] > on the new storage engine has some comparison numbers for 2.2/3.0, with and > without compression that show that in many cases compression no longer has a > significant effect on sstable sizes - all while sill consuming extra > resources for both writes (compression) and reads (decompression). > We should run a comprehensive set of benchmarks to determine whether or not > compression should be switched to 'off' now in 3.x. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)