Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of stanhope@gmail.com designates
 209.85.215.172 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        b=hdIbql59OZGAkxrwRqkRQRlvYd5yhi3OvdN457eivwwBHNDX9BonWt9tlKeQhzV2r9
         p7rH15DgMyBrpAwuAP4vyEekxgsongJc5uQ/64T0g7aUTyN51xqq+cnItCiCzTLpG4AO
         EJZGN6Jjh4DiJA0cbeNMt84cz68UVNsKGKbCA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:43:42 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTinUBw4Zwi88KfPky7MA=g211LLY6U3SLqy5w3-0@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: benchmarking of thrift versus avro
From: Phil Stanhope <stanhope@gmail.com>
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174be95e453cfa048f0c5431

--0015174be95e453cfa048f0c5431
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Has there been any benchmarking done on thrift vs avro bindings in 0.7
codebase?

If one was about to bring into alpha production in the Jan 2011 timeframe,
would going with avro be recommended?

If one was to benchmark ... I'd be more interested in benchmarks that
measure access to a node that actually has the data (i.e. ring awareness)
and that are at CL:1 on the read. The CFs and their mutations have extremely
low probability of concurrent writes (or overwrites) and are thus also
configured for CL:1.

I've got a pre-alpha (from my perspective) set of services that are using
thrift from both PHP and Java (not hector). All developers are isolated
behind scale agnostic tier ... so the changes to get onto 0.7/0.7.1 by end
of year and shift to avro would be completely isolated from the remainder of
the development team.

Thanks in advance.

--0015174be95e453cfa048f0c5431--