hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcry...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Early comparisons between 0.90 and 0.92
Date Thu, 15 Dec 2011 20:18:18 GMT
Like I said, I'm using local reads (HDFS-2246) and the data is
_already in the OS cache_.

J-D

2011/12/15 Vladimir Rodionov <vrodionov@carrieriq.com>:
> 200K random reads is way -way above of what we see in production.
> ?
>
> 1.1M row scan - as well. 10-20K per sec max when you run 'count' from HBase shell
>
> Is there any magic recipe  I am not aware about yet?
>
> Best regards,
> Vladimir Rodionov
> Principal Platform Engineer
> Carrier IQ, www.carrieriq.com
> e-mail: vrodionov@carrieriq.com
>
> ________________________________________
> From: jdcryans@gmail.com [jdcryans@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jean-Daniel Cryans [jdcryans@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 7:20 PM
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Early comparisons between 0.90 and 0.92
>
> Yes and yes.
>
> J-D
> On Dec 14, 2011 5:52 PM, "Matt Corgan" <mcorgan@hotpads.com> wrote:
>
>> Regions are major compacted and have empty memstores, so no merging of
>> stores when reading?
>>
>>
>> 2011/12/14 Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcryans@apache.org>
>>
>> > Yes sorry 1.1M
>> >
>> > This is PE, the table is set to a block size of 4KB and block caching
>> > is disabled. Nothing else special in there.
>> >
>> > J-D
>> >
>> > 2011/12/14  <yuzhihong@gmail.com>:
>> > > Thanks for the info, J-D.
>> > >
>> > > I guess the 1.1 below is in millions.
>> > >
>> > > Can you tell us more about your tables - bloom filters, etc ?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 在 Dec 14, 2011,5:26 PM,Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcryans@apache.org>
写道:
>> > >
>> > >> Hey guys,
>> > >>
>> > >> I was doing some comparisons between 0.90.5 and 0.92.0, mainly
>> > >> regarding reads. The numbers are kinda irrelevant but the differences
>> > >> are. BTW this is on CDH3u3 with random reads.
>> > >>
>> > >> In 0.90.0, scanning 50M rows that are in the OS cache I go up to about
>> > >> 1.7M rows scanned per second.
>> > >>
>> > >> In 0.92.0, scanning those same rows (meaning that I didn't run
>> > >> compactions after migrating so it's picking the same data from the
OS
>> > >> cache), I scan about 1.1 rows per second.
>> > >>
>> > >> 0.92 is 50% slower when scanning.
>> > >>
>> > >> In 0.90.0 random reading 50M rows that are OS cached I can do about
>> > >> 200k reads per second.
>> > >>
>> > >> In 0.92.0, again with those same rows, I can go up to 260k per second.
>> > >>
>> > >> 0.92 is 30% faster when random reading.
>> > >>
>> > >> I've been playing with that data set for a while and the numbers in
>> > >> 0.92.0 when using HFileV1 or V2 are pretty much the same meaning that
>> > >> something else changed or the code that's generic to both did.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> I'd like to be able to associate those differences to code changes
in
>> > >> order to understand what's going on. I would really appreciate if
>> > >> others also took some time to test it out or to think about what could
>> > >> cause this.
>> > >>
>> > >> Thx,
>> > >>
>> > >> J-D
>> >
>>
>
> Confidentiality Notice:  The information contained in this message, including any attachments
hereto, may be confidential and is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to
whom this message is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient
or an agent or designee of the intended recipient, please note that any review, use, disclosure
or distribution of this message or its attachments, in any form, is strictly prohibited.  If
you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and/or Notifications@carrieriq.com
and delete or destroy any copy of this message and its attachments.

Mime
View raw message