tajo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Azuryy Yu <azury...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Feedback for tajo-0.10.0
Date Mon, 16 Mar 2015 07:11:08 GMT
Hi Jihoon,

Here is an example:
My data: (Parquet file is 1GB limited)
 hadoop fs -ls /data/basetable/par/dt=20150301/pf=pc

-rw-r--r--   9 hadoop tajo 1062932057 2015-03-12 15:08
/data/basetable/par/dt=20150301/pf=pc/cc456c9d427c88a3-3ead7e35ecf0da8_448517166_data.0.parq
-rw-r--r--   9 hadoop tajo 1063205684 2015-03-12 15:11
/data/basetable/par/dt=20150301/pf=pc/cc456c9d427c88a3-3ead7e35ecf0da8_448517166_data.1.parq
-rw-r--r--   9 hadoop tajo 1063236005 2015-03-12 15:14
/data/basetable/par/dt=20150301/pf=pc/cc456c9d427c88a3-3ead7e35ecf0da8_448517166_data.2.parq
-rw-r--r--   9 hadoop tajo  543786632 2015-03-12 15:16
/data/basetable/par/dt=20150301/pf=pc/cc456c9d427c88a3-3ead7e35ecf0da8_448517166_data.3.parq

hadoop fs -ls /data/basetable/snappy/dt=20150301/pf=pc

-rw-r--r--   9 tajo tajo  144059045 2015-03-16 11:48
/data/basetable/snappy/dt=20150301/pf=pc/part-r-00000
-rw-r--r--   9 tajo tajo  144178118 2015-03-16 11:48
/data/basetable/snappy/dt=20150301/pf=pc/part-r-00001
-rw-r--r--   9 tajo tajo  143642438 2015-03-16 11:48
/data/basetable/snappy/dt=20150301/pf=pc/part-r-00002
-rw-r--r--   9 tajo tajo  143553142 2015-03-16 11:48
/data/basetable/snappy/dt=20150301/pf=pc/part-r-00003
-rw-r--r--   9 tajo tajo  143849627 2015-03-16 11:48
/data/basetable/snappy/dt=20150301/pf=pc/part-r-00004
-rw-r--r--   9 tajo tajo  144648456 2015-03-16 11:48
/data/basetable/snappy/dt=20150301/pf=pc/part-r-00005
-rw-r--r--   9 tajo tajo  144647502 2015-03-16 11:48
/data/basetable/snappy/dt=20150301/pf=pc/part-r-00006
-rw-r--r--   9 tajo tajo  144551053 2015-03-16 11:48
/data/basetable/snappy/dt=20150301/pf=pc/part-r-00007
-rw-r--r--   9 tajo tajo  144017287 2015-03-16 11:48
/data/basetable/snappy/dt=20150301/pf=pc/part-r-00008
-rw-r--r--   9 tajo tajo  144205111 2015-03-16 11:48
/data/basetable/snappy/dt=20150301/pf=pc/part-r-00009
-rw-r--r--   9 tajo tajo  145066506 2015-03-16 11:48
/data/basetable/snappy/dt=20150301/pf=pc/part-r-00010
-rw-r--r--   9 tajo tajo  144740791 2015-03-16 11:48
/data/basetable/snappy/dt=20150301/pf=pc/part-r-00011
-rw-r--r--   9 tajo tajo  144198266 2015-03-16 11:48
/data/basetable/snappy/dt=20150301/pf=pc/part-r-00012
-rw-r--r--   9 tajo tajo  143575440 2015-03-16 11:48
/data/basetable/snappy/dt=20150301/pf=pc/part-r-00013
-rw-r--r--   9 tajo tajo  143922343 2015-03-16 11:48
/data/basetable/snappy/dt=20150301/pf=pc/part-r-00014
-rw-r--r--   9 tajo tajo  143930019 2015-03-16 11:48
/data/basetable/snappy/dt=20150301/pf=pc/part-r-00015
-rw-r--r--   9 tajo tajo  144253019 2015-03-16 11:48
/data/basetable/snappy/dt=20150301/pf=pc/part-r-00016
-rw-r--r--   9 tajo tajo  144175506 2015-03-16 11:48
/data/basetable/snappy/dt=20150301/pf=pc/part-r-00017
-rw-r--r--   9 tajo tajo  143072995 2015-03-16 11:48
/data/basetable/snappy/dt=20150301/pf=pc/part-r-00018
-rw-r--r--   9 tajo tajo  143818118 2015-03-16 11:48
/data/basetable/snappy/dt=20150301/pf=pc/part-r-00019

Result:

default> select sum (cast(movie_vv as bigint)), sum(cast(movie_cv as
bigint)),sum(cast(movie_pt as bigint)) from snappy where pf='pc';
Progress: 19%, response time: 1.87 sec
Progress: 19%, response time: 1.873 sec
Progress: 19%, response time: 2.276 sec
Progress: 100%, response time: 2.372 sec
?sum_3,  ?sum_4,  ?sum_5
-------------------------------
6928463,  6183665,  6055494385
(1 rows, 2.372 sec, 27 B selected)
default> select sum (cast(movie_vv as bigint)), sum(cast(movie_cv as
bigint)),sum(cast(movie_pt as bigint)) from par where pf='pc';
Progress: 0%, response time: 0.751 sec
Progress: 0%, response time: 0.753 sec
Progress: 0%, response time: 1.155 sec
Progress: 0%, response time: 1.959 sec
Progress: 0%, response time: 2.962 sec
Progress: 0%, response time: 3.965 sec
Progress: 0%, response time: 4.968 sec
Progress: 0%, response time: 5.97 sec
Progress: 12%, response time: 6.974 sec
Progress: 12%, response time: 7.977 sec
Progress: 12%, response time: 8.979 sec
Progress: 12%, response time: 9.982 sec
Progress: 25%, response time: 10.985 sec
Progress: 100%, response time: 11.14 sec
?sum_3,  ?sum_4,  ?sum_5
-------------------------------
6928463,  6183665,  6055494385
(1 rows, 11.14 sec, 27 B selected)

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Jihoon Son <jihoonson@apache.org> wrote:

> Azuryy, thanks for your feedbacks.
> They are very interesting results.
> Would you mind telling me how Tajo with Parquet is slower than Tajo with
> RCFile?
>
> Thanks,
> Jihoon
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:39 PM Hyunsik Choi <hyunsik@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Azuryy,
> >
> > Thank for sharing the test results. They are very inspiring to us.
> > Also, I'll make some jira about the problems that you found.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Hyunsik
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Azuryy Yu <azuryyyu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Another fix:
> > > My test result is unfair during compare Imapla-2.1.2 and Tajo-0.10.0,
> > > because I used Parquet with Impala and RCFILE snappy with Tajo. I
> should
> > > use the same file format to compare.
> > >
> > > because I've got a clear conclusion that Imapala works better on
> Parquet
> > > than Tajo, so I use RCFILE as the test data.
> > >
> > > *Tajo*:
> > > default> select sum (cast(movie_vv as bigint)), sum(cast(movie_cv as
> > > bigint)),sum(cast(movie_pt as bigint)) from snappy;
> > > Progress: 0%, response time: 1.598 sec
> > > Progress: 0%, response time: 1.6 sec
> > > Progress: 0%, response time: 2.003 sec
> > > Progress: 0%, response time: 2.806 sec
> > > Progress: 37%, response time: 3.808 sec
> > > Progress: 100%, response time: 4.792 sec
> > > ?sum_3,  ?sum_4,  ?sum_5
> > > -------------------------------
> > > 22557920,  19648838,  2005366694576
> > > (1 rows, 4.792 sec, 32 B selected)
> > >
> > > *Impala*:
> > >  > select sum (cast(movie_vv as bigint)), sum(cast(movie_cv as
> > > bigint)),sum(cast(movie_pt as bigint)) from snappy;
> > > +-------------------------------+---------------------------
> > ----+-------------------------------+
> > > | sum(cast(movie_vv as bigint)) | sum(cast(movie_cv as bigint)) |
> > > sum(cast(movie_pt as bigint)) |
> > > +-------------------------------+---------------------------
> > ----+-------------------------------+
> > > | 22557920                      | 19648838                      |
> > > 2005366694576                 |
> > > +-------------------------------+---------------------------
> > ----+-------------------------------+
> > > Fetched 1 row(s) in 11.12s
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Azuryy Yu <azuryyyu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> There is a typo in my Email. I corrected here:
> > >>
> > >> for example:
> > >>
> > >>   <property>
> > >>     <name>tajo.master.umbilical-rpc.address</name>
> > >>     <value>1-1-1-1:26001</value>
> > >>   </property>
> > >>
> > >> which does work under tajo-0.9.0, but it complain "1-1-1-1:2601" is
> not
> > a
> > >> valid network address under tajo-0.10.0.
> > >>
> > >> I have to change to:
> > >>   <property>
> > >>     <name>tajo.master.umbilical-rpc.address</name>
> > >>     <value>1.1.1.1:26001</value>
> > >>   </property>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Azuryy Yu <azuryyyu@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>> I compiled tajo-0.10 source based on hadoop-2.6.0, then post some
> > >>> feedback here.
> > >>>
> > >>> My cluster:
> > >>> 1 tajo-master, 9 tajo-worker
> > >>> 24 CPU(logic), 64GB mem, 4TB*12 HDD
> > >>>
> > >>> Feedback:
> > >>> 1) tajo task progress estimate is normal on partitioned table, which
> is
> > >>> incorrect sometimes in tajo-0.9.0
> > >>> 2) Tajo configuration doesn't support hostname in tajo-site.xml.
> > >>> for example:
> > >>>
> > >>>   <property>
> > >>>     <name>tajo.master.umbilical-rpc.address</name>
> > >>>     <value>1-1-1-1:26001</value>
> > >>>   </property>
> > >>>
> > >>> which does work under tajo-0.9.0, but it complain "1-1-1-1:2601" is
> > not a
> > >>> valid network address.
> > >>>
> > >>> I have to change to:
> > >>>   <property>
> > >>>     <name>tajo.master.umbilical-rpc.address</name>
> > >>>     <value>1.1.1.1:26001</value>
> > >>>   </property>
> > >>>
> > >>> but we don't use IP in our cluster, only hostname. so I did a little
> in
> > >>> the code:
> > >>> org.apache.tajo.validation.NetworkAddressValidator.java:
> > >>> hostnamePattern = Pattern.compile("\\d*-\\d*-\\d*-\\d");
> > >>> then It works.
> > >>>
> > >>> 3) I did some test on the parquet, RCFILE(snappy compressed),
> > >>> RCFILE(GZIP compressed)
> > >>>
> > >>> they are the same data, only different from file format.
> > >>> the table has six partitions, 20 RCFILES, each parquet file is 1GB.
> > >>>
> > >>> then rcfile with snappy's performance is similiar to rcfile with
> gzip.
> > >>> but they are all two~three times better than parquet.
> > >>>
> > >>> 4) I compared tajo-0.10 and Impala-2.1.2,
> > >>> Impala can provide very good support for parquet. more better than
> > Tajo.
> > >>>
> > >>> but impala is more *slow *with other format than Tajo.
> > >>> such as(I don't use WHERE because I want query all six partitions
> > >>> together):
> > >>>
> > >>> *Impala*:
> > >>>  > select sum (cast(movie_vv as bigint)), sum(cast(movie_cv as
> > >>> bigint)),sum(cast(movie_pt as bigint)) from par;
> > >>>
> > >>> +-------------------------------+---------------------------
> > ----+-------------------------------+
> > >>> | sum(cast(movie_vv as bigint)) | sum(cast(movie_cv as bigint)) |
> > >>> sum(cast(movie_pt as bigint)) |
> > >>>
> > >>> +-------------------------------+---------------------------
> > ----+-------------------------------+
> > >>> | 22557920                      | 19648838                      |
> > >>> 2005366694576           |
> > >>>
> > >>> +-------------------------------+---------------------------
> > ----+-------------------------------+
> > >>> Fetched 1 row(s) in 6.02s
> > >>>
> > >>> *Tajo:*
> > >>>
> > >>> *default*> select sum (cast(movie_vv as bigint)), sum(cast(movie_cv
> as
> > >>> bigint)),sum(cast(movie_pt as bigint)) from snappy;
> > >>> Progress: 0%, response time: 1.598 sec
> > >>> Progress: 0%, response time: 1.6 sec
> > >>> Progress: 0%, response time: 2.003 sec
> > >>> Progress: 0%, response time: 2.806 sec
> > >>> Progress: 37%, response time: 3.808 sec
> > >>> Progress: 100%, response time: 4.792 sec
> > >>> ?sum_3,  ?sum_4,  ?sum_5
> > >>> -------------------------------
> > >>> 22557920,  19648838,  2005366694576
> > >>> (1 rows, 4.792 sec, 32 B selected)
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message