One thing I don't understand is why there is noticeable difference in performance between 0.95.0 and trunk. I think their code should be very close to each other.
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[email protected] > wrote: > I ran the performances tests against 0.95.0RC1. > > While filteredScan, read and writes got nice improvements (18% faster > for the reads), scans seems to be negatively impacted (32% slower for > scanRange100). > > Results are there: > http://www.spaggiari.org/media/blogs/hbase/pdf/performances_20130404.pdf > > I have just restarted scanRange100 to validate the numbers. > > JM > > 2013/4/3 Andrew Purtell <[email protected]>: > > I think that sounds good. > > > > On Wednesday, April 3, 2013, Stack wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Then what if we do not provide native binary convenience artifacts and > >> > instead print an INFO level log message, should they be missing, which > >> > points to a book chapter on compiling and installing them? > >> > > >> > > >> Yes. For now, I could just fill out the section in refguide on mlockall > >> since that the only native lib we ship? > >> St.Ack > >> > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > - Andy > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > > (via Tom White) >
