Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27FE0200C78 for ; Thu, 4 May 2017 02:36:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 269A3160BBA; Thu, 4 May 2017 00:36:38 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 6D2CD160BB5 for ; Thu, 4 May 2017 02:36:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 18762 invoked by uid 500); 4 May 2017 00:36:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@ignite.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@ignite.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@ignite.apache.org Received: (qmail 18738 invoked by uid 99); 4 May 2017 00:36:31 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 May 2017 00:36:31 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id E83C91A08AF for ; Thu, 4 May 2017 00:36:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.173 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.173 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.972] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kVpOc9EFB-cT for ; Thu, 4 May 2017 00:36:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mwork.nabble.com (mwork.nabble.com [162.253.133.43]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 67DB05FD29 for ; Thu, 4 May 2017 00:36:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from static.162.255.23.37.macminivault.com (unknown [162.255.23.37]) by mwork.nabble.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D55AF3ECD882C for ; Wed, 3 May 2017 17:36:26 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 17:36:26 -0700 (MST) From: waterg To: user@ignite.apache.org Message-ID: <1493858186866-12401.post@n6.nabble.com> Subject: Query search performance and scalability MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable archived-at: Thu, 04 May 2017 00:36:38 -0000 I have a program that issues SQLQuery on colA, colA has a single column index.=20 The cache has about 360K entries, and 298K unique values in colA. I ran the query 1M times with different values. If the cache only has cache key, here's the results I ran with three senari= o With 1 server node: average search time is 35K nanosecs With 1 server =E2=80=93 1 client: average search time is 128K nanosecs With 2 server =E2=80=93 1 client: average search time is 276K nanosecs If the cache has Affinity Key, here's the results I ran with three senario With 1 server node: average search time is 59K nanosecs With 1 server =E2=80=93 1 client: average search time is 148K nanosecs With 2 server =E2=80=93 1 client: average search time is 287K nanosecs Could anyone advise why the search speed degrades as more nodes are added? Thank you! -- View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.co= m/Query-search-performance-and-scalability-tp12401.html Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.