cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jim Witschey (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-9619) Read performance regression in tables with many columns on trunk and 2.2 vs. 2.1
Date Fri, 26 Jun 2015 03:55:05 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9619?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14602365#comment-14602365
] 

Jim Witschey commented on CASSANDRA-9619:
-----------------------------------------

Ryan's made some improvements to the {{cstar_perf}} backend that make it possible to run write
workloads without deleting data afterwards, then run read workloads over those datasets. In
that environment, I've got my initial writes down and I've got the first read step going.
I'll review the results in the morning.

> Read performance regression in tables with many columns on trunk and 2.2 vs. 2.1
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-9619
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9619
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Jim Witschey
>            Assignee: T Jake Luciani
>              Labels: perfomance
>             Fix For: 2.2.0 rc2
>
>
> There seems to be a regression in read in 2.2 and trunk, as compared to 2.1 and 2.0.
I found it running cstar_perf jobs with 50-column tables. 2.2 may be worse than trunk, though
my results on that aren't consistent. The relevant cstar_perf jobs are here:
> http://cstar.datastax.com/tests/id/273e2ea8-0fc8-11e5-816c-42010af0688f
> http://cstar.datastax.com/tests/id/3a8002d6-1480-11e5-97ff-42010af0688f
> http://cstar.datastax.com/tests/id/40ff2766-1248-11e5-bac8-42010af0688f
> The sequence of commands for these jobs is
> {code}
> stress write n=65000000 -rate threads=300 -col n=FIXED\(50\)
> stress read n=65000000 -rate threads=300
> stress read n=65000000 -rate threads=300
> {code}
> Have a look at the operations per second going from [the first read operation|http://cstar.datastax.com/graph?stats=273e2ea8-0fc8-11e5-816c-42010af0688f&metric=op_rate&operation=2_read&smoothing=1&show_aggregates=true&xmin=0&xmax=729.08&ymin=0&ymax=174379.7]
to [the second read operation|http://cstar.datastax.com/graph?stats=273e2ea8-0fc8-11e5-816c-42010af0688f&metric=op_rate&operation=2_read&smoothing=1&show_aggregates=true&xmin=0&xmax=729.08&ymin=0&ymax=174379.7].
They've fallen from ~135K to ~100K comparing trunk to 2.1 and 2.0. It's slightly worse for
2.2, and 2.2 operations per second fall continuously from the first to the second read operation.
> There's a corresponding increase in read latency -- it's noticable on trunk and pretty
bad on 2.2. Again, the latency gets higher and higher on 2.2 as the read operations progress
(see the graphs [here|http://cstar.datastax.com/graph?stats=273e2ea8-0fc8-11e5-816c-42010af0688f&metric=95th_latency&operation=2_read&smoothing=1&show_aggregates=true&xmin=0&xmax=729.08&ymin=0&ymax=17.27]
and [here|http://cstar.datastax.com/graph?stats=273e2ea8-0fc8-11e5-816c-42010af0688f&metric=95th_latency&operation=3_read&smoothing=1&show_aggregates=true&xmin=0&xmax=928.62&ymin=0&ymax=14.52]).
> I see a similar regression in a [more recent test|http://cstar.datastax.com/graph?stats=40ff2766-1248-11e5-bac8-42010af0688f&metric=op_rate&operation=2_read&smoothing=1&show_aggregates=true&xmin=0&xmax=752.62&ymin=0&ymax=171799.1],
though in this one trunk performed worse than 2.2. This run also didn't display the increasing
latency in 2.2.
> This regression may show for smaller numbers of columns, but not as prominently, as shown
[in the results to this test with the stress default of 5 columns|http://cstar.datastax.com/graph?stats=227cb89e-0fc8-11e5-9f14-42010af0688f&metric=99.9th_latency&operation=3_read&smoothing=1&show_aggregates=true&xmin=0&xmax=498.19&ymin=0&ymax=334.29].
There's an increase in latency variability on trunk and 2.2, but I don't see a regression
in summary statistics.
> My measurements aren't confounded by [the recent regression in cassandra-stress|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9558];
cstar_perf uses the same stress program (from trunk) on all versions on the cluster.
> I'm currently working to
> - reproduce with a smaller workload so this is easier to bisect and debug.
> - get results with larger numbers of columns, since we've seen the regression on 50 columns
but not the stress default of 5.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message