[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6553?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13947166#comment-13947166
]
Aleksey Yeschenko commented on CASSANDRA-6553:
----------------------------------------------
[~rhatch] Thanks. Counter writes at uber contention will look decent (in these
graphs) with CASSANDRA-6880, but why the slower reads - I have no idea. The
read path for counters hasn't really changed since 2.0, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Could be CASSANDRA-6746, could be something else. As I said before, I'd like to
see the same a similar set of benchmarks on non-counter tables, to see if
regular reads would show same weird read results 'under contention'.
> 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, tracing.txt, 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)
