In my experience gz gets roughly 1.5x to 2x better compression than snappy. Snappy is definitely not a pareto improvement (although we tend to use snappy by default). Since it's not always better I think you would need a more solid argument to change the default.
Adam On Aug 13, 2016 8:06 PM, "Josh Elser" <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > Same motivation of using it as for making it the default. I am not aware > of any downside to it. It's become pretty standard across all installations > I've worked with for years. > > Asking because I am no oracle on the matter. I could just be ignorant of > some issue, but, given my current understanding, there is no downside for > the average case. > > Christopher wrote: > >> Sorry. I wasn't clear. I understand the motivation for using it... I'm >> asking about the motivation for making it the default. >> >> Since both are available, I'm not sure the default matters *that* much, >> but >> it could be an unexpected change for those preferring GZ. >> >> Also, are there any risks regarding library availability of snappy? GZ is >> pretty ubiquitous. >> >> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 10:59 PM Josh Elser<josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Uhh, besides what I already mentioned? (close in compressed size but >>> "much" faster) >>> >>> Christopher wrote: >>> >>>> What's the motivation for changing it? >>>> >>>> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 10:47 PM Josh Elser<josh.el...@gmail.com> >>>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Any reason we don't want to do this? Last rule-of-thumb I heard was that >>>>> snappy is often close enough in compression to GZ but quite a bit >>>>> faster >>>>> (I don't remember exactly how much). >>>>> >>>>> - Josh >>>>> >>>>> >>
