incubator-cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Re: wo did some test on cassandra ,but the result puzzled us
Date Fri, 12 Mar 2010 12:40:08 GMT
yes, this is a single-threaded benchmark so if getRandomRow is slow at
all, it is going to skew the hell out of your results :)

2010/3/12 Bingbing Liu <rucbing@gmail.com>:
> the difference between se and random the test code is just how the key of each record
is generated.
>
> the test code is :
>
>
> long totalSWriteTime = 0;
> for (int i = 0; i < totalRows; i++) {
> byte[] key = dg.getRandomRow();//when sequential write , we use i as the key
> byte[] data = dg.generateValue();
> long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
> client.insert("Keyspace1", new String(key), new ColumnPath(
> "Standard1", null, "data".getBytes("UTF-8")), data,timestamp, ConsistencyLevel.ONE);
> totalSWriteTime += (System.currentTimeMillis() - start);
>    if(i % 10000 == 0){
> System.out.println("Has write " + i);
>    }
> }
>
> is there something wrong?
> 2010-03-12
>
>
>
> Bingbing Liu
>
>
>
> 发件人: Jonathan Ellis
> 发送时间: 2010-03-12  13:40:40
> 收件人: cassandra-dev
> 抄送:
> 主题: Re: wo did some test on cassandra ,but the result puzzled us
>
> why reads are slower than writes:
> http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/FAQ#reads_slower_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 <rucbing@gmail.com> 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
>>
>

Mime
View raw message