Your argument fails to address the performance benefits. I could pose the same question back to you: you need to prove why we shouldn't use the faster compression algorithm.
I don't mean to be snarky, but your argument is shutting down conversation. I appreciate you sharing the opinion but don't feel like it's encouraging discussion. On Aug 13, 2016 11:18 PM, "Adam Fuchs" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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" <[email protected]> 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<[email protected]> > 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<[email protected]> > >>>> > >>> 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 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> >
