Re: [DISCUSSION] Should we mark DROP COMPACT STORAGE as experimental

I opened CASSANDRA-16733 to add the flag. Le ven. 11 juin 2021 à 15:18, Ekaterina Dimitrova a écrit : > Sounds reasonable to me, thank you Benjamin! > > On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 7:36, Benjamin Lerer wrote: > > > Thanks everybody for the feed

Re: [DISCUSSION] Should we mark DROP COMPACT STORAGE as experimental

Sounds reasonable to me, thank you Benjamin! On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 7:36, Benjamin Lerer wrote: > Thanks everybody for the feedback. > > With the protocol flag mechanism and the documentation. I agree that the > users should not be surprised by the schema change. > Nevertheless, there are still

Re: [DISCUSSION] Should we mark DROP COMPACT STORAGE as experimental

Thanks everybody for the feedback. With the protocol flag mechanism and the documentation. I agree that the users should not be surprised by the schema change. Nevertheless, there are still several issues remaining and I am under the impression that our test coverage is not at the level it should

Re: [DISCUSSION] Should we mark DROP COMPACT STORAGE as experimental

We had many discussions around this back when this was added. There is a transition ability in place. Users can set a native protocol flag to have the server return results as if DROP COMPACT STORAGE was already run. In this way you can update your applications to support the new way results

Re: [DISCUSSION] Should we mark DROP COMPACT STORAGE as experimental

+1 to making DROP CS experimental (i.e. disabling it by default) w/ a link to the docs explaining the possible side effects The sooner we do that, the more defensible https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-16675 (a proposed solution to the query performance issue mentioned above) becomes.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Should we mark DROP COMPACT STORAGE as experimental

Thank you for bringing this subject up. > not ready for production use unless users fully understand what they are doing. Thing is, there's no easy way around dropping compact storage. At the moment of writing of 10857, we have collectively decided that we'll document that the new columns are go

Re: [DISCUSSION] Should we mark DROP COMPACT STORAGE as experimental

> > not ready for production use unless users fully understand what they are > doing. This statement stood out to me - in my opinion we should think carefully about the surface area of the user interfaces on new features before we add more cognitive burden to our users. We already have plenty of "

Re: [DISCUSSION] Should we mark DROP COMPACT STORAGE as experimental

+1 On Fri, Jun 4, 2021, 3:53 AM Benjamin Lerer wrote: > Hi everybody, > > There are a significant amount of issues with DROP COMPACT STORAGE that can > be pretty surprising for users. > To name a few: > * Some hidden columns will show up changing the resultset returned for > wildcard queries > *

Re: [DISCUSSION] Should we mark DROP COMPACT STORAGE as experimental

rs must upgrade to a future patch > version of 4.0 before going to 4.next/5.0? > > > From: Benjamin Lerer > Date: Friday, 4 June 2021 at 09:53 > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > Subject: [DISCUSSION] Should we mark DROP COMPACT STORAGE as experimental > Hi everybody, >

Re: [DISCUSSION] Should we mark DROP COMPACT STORAGE as experimental

roadmap, or do we stipulate that users must upgrade to a future patch version of 4.0 before going to 4.next/5.0? From: Benjamin Lerer Date: Friday, 4 June 2021 at 09:53 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: [DISCUSSION] Should we mark DROP COMPACT STORAGE as experimental Hi everybody, There are

[DISCUSSION] Should we mark DROP COMPACT STORAGE as experimental

Hi everybody, There are a significant amount of issues with DROP COMPACT STORAGE that can be pretty surprising for users. To name a few: * Some hidden columns will show up changing the resultset returned for wildcard queries * As COMPACT tables did not have primary key liveness there empty rows in