Yes sorry 1.1M This is PE, the table is set to a block size of 4KB and block caching is disabled. Nothing else special in there.
J-D 2011/12/14 <[email protected]>: > Thanks for the info, J-D. > > I guess the 1.1 below is in millions. > > Can you tell us more about your tables - bloom filters, etc ? > > > > 在 Dec 14, 2011，5:26 PM，Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]> 写道： > >> Hey guys, >> >> I was doing some comparisons between 0.90.5 and 0.92.0, mainly >> regarding reads. The numbers are kinda irrelevant but the differences >> are. BTW this is on CDH3u3 with random reads. >> >> In 0.90.0, scanning 50M rows that are in the OS cache I go up to about >> 1.7M rows scanned per second. >> >> In 0.92.0, scanning those same rows (meaning that I didn't run >> compactions after migrating so it's picking the same data from the OS >> cache), I scan about 1.1 rows per second. >> >> 0.92 is 50% slower when scanning. >> >> In 0.90.0 random reading 50M rows that are OS cached I can do about >> 200k reads per second. >> >> In 0.92.0, again with those same rows, I can go up to 260k per second. >> >> 0.92 is 30% faster when random reading. >> >> I've been playing with that data set for a while and the numbers in >> 0.92.0 when using HFileV1 or V2 are pretty much the same meaning that >> something else changed or the code that's generic to both did. >> >> >> I'd like to be able to associate those differences to code changes in >> order to understand what's going on. I would really appreciate if >> others also took some time to test it out or to think about what could >> cause this. >> >> Thx, >> >> J-D
