hawq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leon Zhang <leonca...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Performance issue about HAWQ 2.0 beta
Date Mon, 30 Nov 2015 07:19:18 GMT
Hi, Jiali Yao,

   Thanks for you reply.

   Here is the detail information:
   1. the segment configrations:
# select * from gp_segment_configuration ;
 registration_order | role | status | port  | hostname |  address
--------------------+------+--------+-------+----------+------------
                  0 | m    | u      | 25432 | dserver1 | dserver1
                  1 | p    | u      | 40404 | dserver5 | 10.10.0.15
                  2 | p    | u      | 40404 | dserver3 | 10.10.0.13
                  3 | p    | u      | 40404 | dserver1 | 10.10.0.11
                  4 | p    | u      | 40404 | dserver4 | 10.10.0.14
                  5 | p    | u      | 40404 | dserver2 | 10.10.0.12
(6 rows)

    2. The "explain analyze" about the query, see the attachement.

    3. No, this query was tested *without YARN*.

Thanks


On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Jiali Yao <jyao@pivotal.io> wrote:

> Hi Leon
>
> Thanks for providing it. The result is not as we expected. In our
> performance test, we found the performance is comparable with 1.3.
> Could you please some more information:
> 1. Get segment configuration information from 1.3 and 2.0
> select * from gp_segment_configuration ;
> 2. Could you please run "explain analyze" to get more statistic
> information?
> 3. Want to confirm with you: The result run in yarn mode ,right? Also I see
> your previous email to indicate there is some error in yarn, these query is
> also from that test round, right?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jiali
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Leon Zhang <leoncamel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi, HAWQ Developers:
> >
> >    As my previous email hint, I run TPC-DS test on our development.
> > Comparing with previous version 1.3.x, we can see the performance
> > improvement on most of queries.
> >
> >    But the problem is performance reduction for *some* queries. For
> > example, the query64, the running time increase from 10754.688 ms
> > to 68884.731 ms . I am not sure if any changes were made that increase
> the
> > running time?
> >
> >    In order to discuss the detail about this issue, I would like use the
> > query10. The running time increase from 1795.746 ms to 744919.251 ms. I
> > also attache the sql about this query, and the query plan for this query.
> >
> >    Thanks
> >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message