hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From stack <st...@duboce.net>
Subject Re: HBase reading performance
Date Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:49:08 GMT
2010/1/20 <y_823910@tsmc.com>

> Hi,
>
> There are two tables table1,table2 in my cluster.
>
> table1 with two column family, 40 qualifier, 147 regions
> table1 with two column family, 34 qualifier,  77 regions
>
> In no cache situation, 4 region sever with 2G RAM
>
> Get table1 1285 rows , taken 133 sec, avg:0.103
> Get table2 1279 rows , taken  48 sec, avg:0.037
>
> More RAM makes hbase go faster, presuming some data locality.

Can you figure what the difference between the two tables is?  Is it that
the first has more store files (try doing a -lsr on the hbase directory in
hdfs).  I presume the two tables are scattered over the same 4 node
cluster?   So, its not a hw difference.

St.Ack



> As to the above result, taht table with more region took more time for
> getting each row.
> If we scale region server out to 15 machine(4 cores, 12G RAM),
> will it be possible to lower the average time of table1?
>





> Thanks
>
> Fleming Chiu(邱宏明)
> 707-6128
> y_823910@tsmc.com
> 週一無肉日吃素救地球(Meat Free Monday Taiwan)
>
>
>
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                                                         TSMC PROPERTY
>  This email communication (and any attachments) is proprietary information
>  for the sole use of its
>  intended recipient. Any unauthorized review, use or distribution by anyone
>  other than the intended
>  recipient is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient,
>  please notify the sender by
>  replying to this email, and then delete this email and any copies of it
>  immediately. Thank you.
>
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>

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