hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Rawson <ryano...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 0.20 performance numbers
Date Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:59:04 GMT
>From the talk given at hadoop summit:

Fat Table: 1000 Rows with 10 Columns,1MB values
Sequential insert – 68 seconds (68 ms/row)
Random reads – 56.92 ms/row (average)
Full scan – 35 seconds (3.53 seconds/100 rows, 35ms/row)

so for 1 MB values, we are getting a value in 56ms.  Scans in  35ms/row vs
0.01 ms/row per small value.

So you can extrapolate a tad, I dont think you'll be dissapointed :-)

-ryan

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Ski Gh3 <skigh3@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hmmm, don't we have a performance benchmark for comparing with Bigtable?
> seems a while since someone updates that...
> I was just hoping that someone has a rough number in mind, so that i don't
> get any big surpirse when i try this out on the larger row size data.
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Ryan Rawson <ryanobjc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And when I say 'test suite' i really mean "performance suite"  -- that's
> > the
> > problem, test suites we've been running test the functionality, not the
> > speed in a repeatable/scientific manner.
> >
> > -ryan
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Ryan Rawson <ryanobjc@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey,
> > >
> > > The interesting thing is due to the way things are handled internally,
> > > small values are more challenging than large ones.  The performance is
> > not
> > > strictly IO bound or limited, and you won't be seeing corresponding
> > > slowdowns on larger values.
> > >
> > > I encourage you to give download the alpha and give it a shot!  Alas
> some
> > > of the developers are busy developing and haven't run a test suite this
> > > week.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your interest!
> > > -ryan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Ski Gh3 <skigh3@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> In the NOSQL meetup slides the inserts and reads are really good, but
> > the
> > >> test is on single column and only 16bytes,
> > >> I wonder how the numbers would be affected if the row grows to 1K
> bytes,
> > >> even 16Kbytes?
> > >>
> > >> if the numbers are disk I/O bounded, then we almost have to multiply
> the
> > >> numbers by 64 or 1024?
> > >>
> > >> has any one done any other test on this?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks!
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message