[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6553?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13934722#comment-13934722
]
Sylvain Lebresne commented on CASSANDRA-6553:
---------------------------------------------
The reads results are somewhat weird and warrant some further investigation
imo: the current change shouldn't have modified the read path if I'm not
mistaken and so we shouldn't see much (or any really) difference there.
On the write side, the results are definitively nice to see, but I'd be curious
to see some comparison of with and without the (new) counter cache, just to get
an idea of what happen when things don't fit in said cache anymore.
> Benchmark counter improvements (counters++)
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-6553
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6553
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Test
> Reporter: Ryan McGuire
> Assignee: Russ Hatch
> Fix For: 2.1 beta2
>
> Attachments: 6553.uber.quorum.bdplab.read.png,
> 6553.uber.quorum.bdplab.write.png, high_cl_one.png, high_cl_quorum.png,
> low_cl_one.png, low_cl_quorum.png, uber_cl_one.png, uber_cl_quorum.png
>
>
> Benchmark the difference in performance between CASSANDRA-6504 and trunk.
> * Updating totally unrelated counters (different partitions)
> * Updating the same counters a lot (same cells in the same partition)
> * Different cells in the same few partitions (hot counter partition)
> benchmark:
> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/tree/1218bcacba7edefaf56cf8440d0aea5794c89a1e
> (old counters)
> compared to:
> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/tree/714c423360c36da2a2b365efaf9c5c4f623ed133
> (new counters)
> So far, the above changes should only affect the write path.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
