hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Re: hbase read performance tuning failed
Date Wed, 08 Jan 2014 07:19:33 GMT
Ahh... You're using thrift. I honestly do not know what performance characteristics you should
expect from that.
Maybe some folks here who use thrift can answer that...?

-- Lars



________________________________
 From: LEI Xiaofeng <leixf@ihep.ac.cn>
To: user@hbase.apache.org; lars hofhansl <larsh@apache.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2014 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: hbase read performance tuning failed
 

Lars,

I use "scannerOpenWithPrefix" func to get my scanner and use "scannerGetList(rowResults, scanner,100)"
func to get rows. I can only get about 5K records per second. But my exception is at least
220K records per second. 

I want to know what have you done makes you manage to get that permance as you said. Could
you give me some more detailed suggestion?

Thanks 



> -----原始邮件-----
> 发件人: "lars hofhansl" <larsh@apache.org>
> 发送时间: 2014年1月8日 星期三
> 收件人: "user@hbase.apache.org" <user@hbase.apache.org>
> 抄送: 
> 主题: Re: hbase read performance tuning failed
> 
> If increasing hbase.client.scanner.caching makes no difference you have another issue.
> How many rows do you expect your to return?
> 
> On contemporary hardware I manage to scan a few million KeyValues (i.e. columns) per
second and per CPU core.
> Note that for scan performance you want to increase the BLOCKSIZE.
> 
> 
> -- Lars
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
>  From: LEI Xiaofeng <leixf@ihep.ac.cn>
> To: user@hbase.apache.org 
> Sent: Monday, January 6, 2014 11:06 PM
> Subject: hbase read performance tuning failed
>  
> 
> Hi,
> I am running hbase-0.94.6-cdh4.5.0 and set up a cluster of 5 nodes. The random read performance
is ok, but the scan performance is poor.
> I tried to increase "hbase.client.scanner.caching" to 100 to promote the scan performance
but it made  no difference. And when I tried to make smaller blocks by setting "BLOCKSIZE"
when created tables to get better random read performance it made no difference too.
> So, I am wondering if anyone could give some advice to solve this problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message