As I understand it "COMPACT STORAGE" only has meaning in the CQL parser for backwards compatibility as of 3.0. The on disk storage is not affected by its usage.
> On Apr 11, 2016, at 3:33 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith <bened...@apache.org> > wrote: > > Compact storage should really have been named "not wasteful storage" - now > everything is "not wasteful storage" so it's void of meaning. This is true > without constraint. You do not need to limit yourself to a single non-PK > column; you can have many and it will remain as or more efficient than > "compact storage" > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 at 15:04, Jack Krupansky <jack.krupan...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> My understanding is Thrift is being removed from Cassandra in 4.0, but will >> COMPACT STORAGE be removed as well? Clearly the two are related, but >> COMPACT STORAGE had a performance advantage in addition to Thrift >> compatibility, so its status is ambiguous. >> >> I recall vague chatter, but no explicit deprecation notice or 4.0 plan for >> removal of COMPACT STORAGE. Actually, I don't even see a deprecation notice >> for Thrift itself in CHANGES.txt. >> >> Will a table with only a single non-PK column automatically be implemented >> at a comparable level of efficiency compared to the old/current Compact >> STORAGE? That will still leave the question of how to migrate a non-Thrift >> COMPACT STORAGE table (i.e., used for performance by a CQL-oriented >> developer rather than Thrift compatibility per se) to pure CQL. >> >> -- Jack Krupansky >>
