hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ski Gh3 <ski...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 0.20 performance numbers
Date Thu, 18 Jun 2009 01:08:43 GMT
That's really cool~
Thanks for the info, Ryan!!!

Cheers,
Ski Gh

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Ryan Rawson <ryanobjc@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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