I'll be busy today... I'll double check my scanning related changes as soon as 
i can.

Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]> schrieb:

>Yes and yes.
>
>J-D
>On Dec 14, 2011 5:52 PM, "Matt Corgan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Regions are major compacted and have empty memstores, so no merging of
>> stores when reading?
>>
>>
>> 2011/12/14 Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected]>
>>
>> > 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
>> >
>>

Reply via email to