[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA9619?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:alltabpanel
]
T Jake Luciani updated CASSANDRA9619:

Assignee: (was: T Jake Luciani)
> Read performance regression in tables with many columns on trunk and 2.2 vs. 2.1
> 
>
> Key: CASSANDRA9619
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA9619
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Jim Witschey
> 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 50column 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/273e2ea80fc811e5816c42010af0688f
> http://cstar.datastax.com/tests/id/3a8002d6148011e597ff42010af0688f
> http://cstar.datastax.com/tests/id/40ff2766124811e5bac842010af0688f
> 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 operationhttp://cstar.datastax.com/graph?stats=273e2ea80fc811e5816c42010af0688f&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 operationhttp://cstar.datastax.com/graph?stats=273e2ea80fc811e5816c42010af0688f&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 [herehttp://cstar.datastax.com/graph?stats=273e2ea80fc811e5816c42010af0688f&metric=95th_latency&operation=2_read&smoothing=1&show_aggregates=true&xmin=0&xmax=729.08&ymin=0&ymax=17.27]
and [herehttp://cstar.datastax.com/graph?stats=273e2ea80fc811e5816c42010af0688f&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 testhttp://cstar.datastax.com/graph?stats=40ff2766124811e5bac842010af0688f&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 columnshttp://cstar.datastax.com/graph?stats=227cb89e0fc811e59f1442010af0688f&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 cassandrastresshttps://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA9558];
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)
