Not wanting to have this thread too end up as a mystery-result on the
web, I did some tests. I loaded 10k rows (of 100 KB random chars each)
into test tables on 0.90 and 0.92 both, flushed them, major_compact'ed
them (waited for completion and drop in IO write activity) and then
measured them to find this:

0.92 takes a total of 1049661190 bytes under its /hbase/test directory.
0.90 takes a total of 1049467570 bytes under its /hbase/test directory.

So… not much of a difference. It is still your data that counts. I
believe what Anil may have had were merely additional, un-compacted
stores?

P.s. Note that my 'test' table were all defaults. That is, merely
"create 'test', 'col1'", nothing else, so the block indexes must've
probably gotten created for every row, as thats at 64k by default,
while my rows are all 100k each.

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:25 AM, anil gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

--
Harsh J
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB