This numbers are definitely preliminary and the reason that we send them out was to involve the community from the get go and have them critique this work. The mistake though was sending this out on the users list as opposed to the dev lists. Regarding better than map/reduce I think that the number is better than thae particular way the query was implemented in the SIGMOD paper. It is more of a reflection of the implementation there as opposed to map/reduce in general.
In keeping with Owen's comments we should move this discussion to the dev lists, users is not an appropriate forum for it. Ashish ----- Original Message ----- From: Owen O'Malley <owen.omal...@gmail.com> To: core-user@hadoop.apache.org <core-user@hadoop.apache.org>; pig-u...@hadoop.apache.org <pig-u...@hadoop.apache.org>; hive-u...@hadoop.apache.org <hive-u...@hadoop.apache.org> Sent: Fri Jun 19 10:03:06 2009 Subject: Re: A simple performance benchmark for Hadoop, Hive and Pig On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Zheng Shao <zs...@facebook.com> wrote: > Yuntao Jia, our intern this summer, did a simple performance benchmark for > Hadoop, Hive and Pig based on the queries in the SIGMOD 2009 paper: A > Comparison of Approaches to Large-Scale Data Analysis It should be noted that no one on the Pig team was involved in setting up the benchmarks and the queries don't follow the Pig cookbook suggestions for writing efficient queries, so these results should be considered *extremely* preliminary. Furthermore, I can't see any way that Hive should be able to beat raw map/reduce, since Hive uses map/reduce to run the job. In the future, it would be better to involve the respective communities (mapreduce-dev and pig-dev) far before pushing benchmark results out to the user lists. The Hadoop project, which includes all three subprojects, needs to be a cooperative community that is trying to build the best software we can. Getting benchmark numbers is good, but are better done in a collaborative manner. -- Owen
