cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kurt Greaves (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (CASSANDRA-14415) Performance regression in queries for distinct keys
Date Wed, 06 Jun 2018 03:13:00 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14415?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Kurt Greaves updated CASSANDRA-14415:
-------------------------------------
    Issue Type: Bug  (was: Improvement)

> Performance regression in queries for distinct keys
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-14415
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14415
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Core
>            Reporter: Samuel Klock
>            Assignee: Samuel Klock
>            Priority: Major
>              Labels: performance
>             Fix For: 3.0.x, 3.11.x, 4.x
>
>
> Running Cassandra 3.0.16, we observed a major performance regression affecting {{SELECT
DISTINCT keys}}-style queries against certain tables.  Based on some investigation (guided
by some helpful feedback from Benjamin on the dev list), we tracked the regression down to
two problems.
>  * One is that Cassandra was reading more data from disk than was necessary to satisfy
the query.  This was fixed under CASSANDRA-10657 in a later 3.x release.
>  * If the fix for CASSANDRA-10657 is incorporated, the other is this code snippet in
{{RebufferingInputStream}}:
> {code:java}
>     @Override
>     public int skipBytes(int n) throws IOException
>     {
>         if (n < 0)
>             return 0;
>         int requested = n;
>         int position = buffer.position(), limit = buffer.limit(), remaining;
>         while ((remaining = limit - position) < n)
>         {
>             n -= remaining;
>             buffer.position(limit);
>             reBuffer();
>             position = buffer.position();
>             limit = buffer.limit();
>             if (position == limit)
>                 return requested - n;
>         }
>         buffer.position(position + n);
>         return requested;
>     }
> {code}
> The gist of it is that to skip bytes, the stream needs to read those bytes into memory
then throw them away.  In our tests, we were spending a lot of time in this method, so it
looked like the chief drag on performance.
> We noticed that the subclass of {{RebufferingInputStream}} in use for our queries, {{RandomAccessReader}}
(over compressed sstables), implements a {{seek()}} method.  Overriding {{skipBytes()}} in
it to use {{seek()}} instead was sufficient to fix the performance regression.
> The performance difference is significant for tables with large values.  It's straightforward
to evaluate with very simple key-value tables, e.g.:
> {{CREATE TABLE testtable (key TEXT PRIMARY KEY, value BLOB);}}
> We did some basic experimentation with the following variations (all in a single-node
3.11.2 cluster with off-the-shelf settings running on a dev workstation):
>  * small values (1 KB, 100,000 entries), somewhat larger values (25 KB, 10,000 entries),
and much larger values (1 MB, 10,000 entries);
>  * compressible data (a single byte repeated) and uncompressible data (output from {{openssl
rand $bytes}}); and
>  * with and without sstable compression.  (With compression, we use Cassandra's defaults.)
> The difference is most conspicuous for tables with large, uncompressible data and sstable
decompression (which happens to describe the use case that triggered our investigation). 
It is smaller but still readily apparent for tables with effective compression.  For uncompressible
data without compression enabled, there is no appreciable difference.
> Here's what the performance looks like without our patch for the 1-MB entries (times
in seconds, five consecutive runs for each data set, all exhausting the results from a {{SELECT
DISTINCT key FROM ...}} query with a page size of 24):
> {noformat}
> working on compressible
> 5.21180510521
> 5.10270500183
> 5.22311806679
> 4.6732840538
> 4.84219098091
> working on uncompressible_uncompressed
> 55.0423607826
> 0.769015073776
> 0.850513935089
> 0.713396072388
> 0.62596988678
> working on uncompressible
> 413.292617083
> 231.345913887
> 449.524993896
> 425.135111094
> 243.469946861
> {noformat}
> and with the fix:
> {noformat}
> working on compressible
> 2.86733293533
> 1.24895811081
> 1.108907938
> 1.12742400169
> 1.04647302628
> working on uncompressible_uncompressed
> 56.4146180153
> 0.895509958267
> 0.922824144363
> 0.772884130478
> 0.731923818588
> working on uncompressible
> 64.4587619305
> 1.81325793266
> 1.52577018738
> 1.41769099236
> 1.60442209244
> {noformat}
> The long initial runs for the uncompressible data presumably come from repeatedly hitting
the disk.  In contrast to the runs without the fix, the initial runs seem to be effective
at warming the page cache (as lots of data is skipped, so the data that's read can fit in
memory), so subsequent runs are faster.
> For smaller data sets, {{RandomAccessReader.seek()}} and {{RebufferingInputStream.skipBytes()}}
are approximately equivalent in their behavior (reducing to changing the position pointer
of an in-memory buffer most of the time), so there isn't much difference.  Here's before
the fix for the 1-KB entries:
> {noformat}
> working on small_compressible
> 8.34115099907
> 8.57280993462
> 8.3534219265
> 8.55130696297
> 8.17362189293
> working on small_uncompressible_uncompressed
> 7.85155582428
> 7.54075288773
> 7.50106596947
> 7.39202189445
> 7.95735621452
> working on small_uncompressible
> 7.89256501198
> 7.88875198364
> 7.9013261795
> 7.76551413536
> 7.84927678108
> {noformat}
> and after:
> {noformat}
> working on small_compressible
> 8.29225707054
> 7.57822394371
> 8.10092878342
> 8.21332192421
> 8.19347810745
> working on small_uncompressible_uncompressed
> 7.74823594093
> 7.81218004227
> 7.68660092354
> 7.95432114601
> 7.77612304688
> working on small_uncompressible
> 8.18260502815
> 8.21010804176
> 8.1233921051
> 7.31543707848
> 7.91079998016
> {noformat}
> The effect is similar for the 25-KB entries, which might enjoy a slight performance benefit
from the patch (perhaps because they're larger than the default buffer size defined in {{RandomAccessReader}}). 
Before:
> {noformat}
> working on medium_compressible
> 0.988080978394
> 1.02464294434
> 0.977658033371
> 1.02553391457
> 0.769363880157
> working on medium_uncompressible_uncompressed
> 1.07718396187
> 1.08547902107
> 1.12398791313
> 1.10300898552
> 1.08757281303
> working on medium_uncompressible
> 0.940990209579
> 0.917474985123
> 0.768013954163
> 0.871683835983
> 0.814841985703
> {noformat}
> and after:
> {noformat}
> working on medium_compressible
> 0.829009056091
> 0.705173015594
> 0.603646993637
> 0.820069074631
> 0.873830080032
> working on medium_uncompressible_uncompressed
> 0.785156965256
> 0.808106184006
> 0.848286151886
> 0.857885837555
> 0.825689077377
> working on medium_uncompressible
> 0.845101118088
> 0.913790941238
> 0.824147939682
> 0.849114894867
> 0.85981798172
> {noformat}
> In short, this looks like a pretty straightforward performance win with negligible cost. 
(It's worth noting that for our use case, disabling sstable compression is clearly the _best_
solution, but there's still reasonably clear benefit from this minor fix for data sets with
larger, compressible values, as well as presumably data sets with a mix of compressible and
uncompressible values in environments where storage is limited.)



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commits-help@cassandra.apache.org


Mime
View raw message