same thing, you are going to need multiple threads to max it out but yes, reads are typically slower than writes in cassandra because of how the log-based merge structures work
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Timo Nentwig <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Dec 7, 2009, at 5:59 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > >> yes and no -- that's about 4200/s, which is typical for only a single > > When writing, yes. But I would expect reading to be much faster (?). > Re-executing the read test doesn't speed up things either (I/O caches). > >> thread but 1/3 to 1/5 of what you'd expect it to max out (on our >> quad-core test boxes) when you add client threads >> >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Timo Nentwig <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> I just downloaded, installed, start cassandra and ran very simple >>> "benchmark": write n times something with >>> key==value==testInsertAndGetAndRemove_n (one thread). >>> >>> For n==10 million on a 7200rpm HDD (4G RAM - there should have be >>> "reasonably" free mem however I didn't check) this took 40min (insert()ing >>> one after another). Reading them one by one in sequence delivers about >>> 100/s, reading in 1.000er batches (i.e. multigetColumn()) takes 5-10s >>> (depending on n, the higher the slower). >>> >>> Are this typical numbers for cassandra (0.5)? I actually took the >>> configuration as it was. > >
