incubator-cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonathan Ellis <>
Subject Re: wo did some test on cassandra ,but the result puzzled us
Date Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:39:46 GMT
why reads are slower than writes:

no idea on seq vs random.  i would not be surprised if there is a bug
in your test code.

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Bingbing Liu <> wrote:
> We did some test on on Cassandra, and the benchmark is from Section 7 of the BigTable
paper “Bigtable: A Distributed Storage System for Structured Data”, the benchmark task
includes: random write, random read, sequential write, and sequential read. The test results
made us puzzled. We use a cluster of 5 nodes (each node has a 4 cores cpu , 4G memory).The
data for test is a table with 4,000,000  records each of which is 1000 bytes. The test results
are as follows:
> Sequential write:  875124 ms
> Sequential read:  1972588 ms
> Random read:  43331738 ms
> Random write:  20193484 ms
> We wondered why the speed of sequential write are so faster than the speed of sequential
read, and why the speed of sequential write are so faster than that of random write? We think
that the speed of read should be faster than that of data write, but the results are just
the opposite, would you please give us some explanations, thanks a lot!
> 2010-03-12
> Bingbing Liu

View raw message