If the crux of your argument was that snappy is always a better choice, then my retort was to say it is not, since sometimes compression ratio can be a dominant factor. Changes to defaults are disruptive for existing users, so you need a better argument. I don't mean that you shouldn't continue to debate the merits. By all means, do continue the conversation.
Adam On Aug 13, 2016 8:39 PM, "Josh Elser" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >> > >
