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 07:13:25 GMT
PS. my Parquet data was generated by Impala: "Insert into a parquet table
[SHUFFLE] ... AS select .... from a text table"

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Azuryy Yu <azuryyyu@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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