accumulo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>
Subject Re: Accumulo Seek performance
Date Mon, 12 Sep 2016 18:02:49 GMT
Josh helped me get up and running w/ YCSB and I Am seeing very
different results.   I am going to make a pull req to Josh's GH repo
to add a Readme w/ what I learned from Josh in IRC.

The link below is the Accumulo config I used for running a local 1.8.0 instance.

https://gist.github.com/keith-turner/4678a0aac2a2a0e240ea5d73285743ab

I created splits user1~ user2~ user3~ user4~ user5~ user6~ user7~
user8~ user9~ AND then compacted the table.

Below is the performance I saw with a single batch scanner (configured
1 partition).  The batch scanner has 10 threads.

2016-09-12 12:36:41,079 [client.ClientConfiguration] WARN : Found no
client.conf in default paths. Using default client configuration
values.
2016-09-12 12:36:41,428 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Connected
to Accumulo
2016-09-12 12:36:41,429 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Computing ranges
2016-09-12 12:36:48,059 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Calculated
all rows: Found 1000000 rows
2016-09-12 12:36:48,096 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Shuffled all rows
2016-09-12 12:36:48,116 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : All ranges
calculated: 3000 ranges found
2016-09-12 12:36:48,118 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing
1 range partitions using a pool of 1 threads
2016-09-12 12:36:49,372 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries
executed in 1252 ms
2016-09-12 12:36:49,372 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing
1 range partitions using a pool of 1 threads
2016-09-12 12:36:50,561 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries
executed in 1188 ms
2016-09-12 12:36:50,561 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing
1 range partitions using a pool of 1 threads
2016-09-12 12:36:51,741 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries
executed in 1179 ms
2016-09-12 12:36:51,741 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing
1 range partitions using a pool of 1 threads
2016-09-12 12:36:52,974 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries
executed in 1233 ms
2016-09-12 12:36:52,974 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing
1 range partitions using a pool of 1 threads
2016-09-12 12:36:54,146 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries
executed in 1171 ms

Below is the performance I saw with 6 batch scanners. Each batch
scanner has 10 threads.

2016-09-12 13:58:21,061 [client.ClientConfiguration] WARN : Found no
client.conf in default paths. Using default client configuration
values.
2016-09-12 13:58:21,380 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Connected
to Accumulo
2016-09-12 13:58:21,381 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Computing ranges
2016-09-12 13:58:28,571 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Calculated
all rows: Found 1000000 rows
2016-09-12 13:58:28,606 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Shuffled all rows
2016-09-12 13:58:28,632 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : All ranges
calculated: 3000 ranges found
2016-09-12 13:58:28,634 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing
6 range partitions using a pool of 6 threads
2016-09-12 13:58:30,273 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries
executed in 1637 ms
2016-09-12 13:58:30,273 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing
6 range partitions using a pool of 6 threads
2016-09-12 13:58:31,883 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries
executed in 1609 ms
2016-09-12 13:58:31,883 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing
6 range partitions using a pool of 6 threads
2016-09-12 13:58:33,422 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries
executed in 1539 ms
2016-09-12 13:58:33,422 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing
6 range partitions using a pool of 6 threads
2016-09-12 13:58:34,994 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries
executed in 1571 ms
2016-09-12 13:58:34,994 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing
6 range partitions using a pool of 6 threads
2016-09-12 13:58:36,512 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries
executed in 1517 ms

Below is the performance I saw with 6 threads each using a scanner.

2016-09-12 14:01:14,972 [client.ClientConfiguration] WARN : Found no
client.conf in default paths. Using default client configuration
values.
2016-09-12 14:01:15,287 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Connected
to Accumulo
2016-09-12 14:01:15,288 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Computing ranges
2016-09-12 14:01:22,309 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Calculated
all rows: Found 1000000 rows
2016-09-12 14:01:22,352 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Shuffled all rows
2016-09-12 14:01:22,373 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : All ranges
calculated: 3000 ranges found
2016-09-12 14:01:22,376 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing
6 range partitions using a pool of 6 threads
2016-09-12 14:01:25,696 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries
executed in 3318 ms
2016-09-12 14:01:25,696 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing
6 range partitions using a pool of 6 threads
2016-09-12 14:01:29,001 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries
executed in 3305 ms
2016-09-12 14:01:29,001 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing
6 range partitions using a pool of 6 threads
2016-09-12 14:01:31,824 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries
executed in 2822 ms
2016-09-12 14:01:31,824 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing
6 range partitions using a pool of 6 threads
2016-09-12 14:01:34,207 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries
executed in 2383 ms
2016-09-12 14:01:34,207 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing
6 range partitions using a pool of 6 threads
2016-09-12 14:01:36,548 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries
executed in 2340 ms

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sven, et al:
>
> So, it would appear that I have been able to reproduce this one (better late
> than never, I guess...). tl;dr Serially using Scanners to do point lookups
> instead of a BatchScanner is ~20x faster. This sounds like a pretty serious
> performance issue to me.
>
> Here's a general outline for what I did.
>
> * Accumulo 1.8.0
> * Created a table with 1M rows, each row with 10 columns using YCSB
> (workloada)
> * Split the table into 9 tablets
> * Computed the set of all rows in the table
>
> For a number of iterations:
> * Shuffle this set of rows
> * Choose the first N rows
> * Construct an equivalent set of Ranges from the set of Rows, choosing a
> random column (0-9)
> * Partition the N rows into X collections
> * Submit X tasks to query one partition of the N rows (to a thread pool with
> X fixed threads)
>
> I have two implementations of these tasks. One, where all ranges in a
> partition are executed via one BatchWriter. A second where each range is
> executed in serial using a Scanner. The numbers speak for themselves.
>
> ** BatchScanners **
> 2016-09-10 17:51:38,811 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Shuffled all
> rows
> 2016-09-10 17:51:38,843 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : All ranges
> calculated: 3000 ranges found
> 2016-09-10 17:51:38,846 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6
> range partitions using a pool of 6 threads
> 2016-09-10 17:52:19,025 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed
> in 40178 ms
> 2016-09-10 17:52:19,025 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6
> range partitions using a pool of 6 threads
> 2016-09-10 17:53:01,321 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed
> in 42296 ms
> 2016-09-10 17:53:01,321 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6
> range partitions using a pool of 6 threads
> 2016-09-10 17:53:47,414 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed
> in 46094 ms
> 2016-09-10 17:53:47,415 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6
> range partitions using a pool of 6 threads
> 2016-09-10 17:54:35,118 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed
> in 47704 ms
> 2016-09-10 17:54:35,119 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6
> range partitions using a pool of 6 threads
> 2016-09-10 17:55:24,339 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed
> in 49221 ms
>
> ** Scanners **
> 2016-09-10 17:57:23,867 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Shuffled all
> rows
> 2016-09-10 17:57:23,898 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : All ranges
> calculated: 3000 ranges found
> 2016-09-10 17:57:23,903 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6
> range partitions using a pool of 6 threads
> 2016-09-10 17:57:26,738 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed
> in 2833 ms
> 2016-09-10 17:57:26,738 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6
> range partitions using a pool of 6 threads
> 2016-09-10 17:57:29,275 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed
> in 2536 ms
> 2016-09-10 17:57:29,275 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6
> range partitions using a pool of 6 threads
> 2016-09-10 17:57:31,425 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed
> in 2150 ms
> 2016-09-10 17:57:31,425 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6
> range partitions using a pool of 6 threads
> 2016-09-10 17:57:33,487 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed
> in 2061 ms
> 2016-09-10 17:57:33,487 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6
> range partitions using a pool of 6 threads
> 2016-09-10 17:57:35,628 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed
> in 2140 ms
>
> Query code is available https://github.com/joshelser/accumulo-range-binning
>
>
> Sven Hodapp wrote:
>>
>> Hi Keith,
>>
>> I've tried it with 1, 2 or 10 threads. Unfortunately there where no
>> amazing differences.
>> Maybe it's a problem with the table structure? For example it may happen
>> that one row id (e.g. a sentence) has several thousand column families. Can
>> this affect the seek performance?
>>
>> So for my initial example it has about 3000 row ids to seek, which will
>> return about 500k entries. If I filter for specific column families (e.g. a
>> document without annotations) it will return about 5k entries, but the seek
>> time will only be halved.
>> Are there to much column families to seek it fast?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sven
>>
>

Mime
View raw message