>From the talk given at hadoop summit: Fat Table: 1000 Rows with 10 Columns,1MB values Sequential insert – 68 seconds (68 ms/row) Random reads – 56.92 ms/row (average) Full scan – 35 seconds (3.53 seconds/100 rows, 35ms/row)
so for 1 MB values, we are getting a value in 56ms. Scans in 35ms/row vs 0.01 ms/row per small value. So you can extrapolate a tad, I dont think you'll be dissapointed :-) -ryan On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Ski Gh3 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmmm, don't we have a performance benchmark for comparing with Bigtable? > seems a while since someone updates that... > I was just hoping that someone has a rough number in mind, so that i don't > get any big surpirse when i try this out on the larger row size data. > > Thanks! > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Ryan Rawson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > And when I say 'test suite' i really mean "performance suite" -- that's > > the > > problem, test suites we've been running test the functionality, not the > > speed in a repeatable/scientific manner. > > > > -ryan > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Ryan Rawson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hey, > > > > > > The interesting thing is due to the way things are handled internally, > > > small values are more challenging than large ones. The performance is > > not > > > strictly IO bound or limited, and you won't be seeing corresponding > > > slowdowns on larger values. > > > > > > I encourage you to give download the alpha and give it a shot! Alas > some > > > of the developers are busy developing and haven't run a test suite this > > > week. > > > > > > Thanks for your interest! > > > -ryan > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Ski Gh3 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> In the NOSQL meetup slides the inserts and reads are really good, but > > the > > >> test is on single column and only 16bytes, > > >> I wonder how the numbers would be affected if the row grows to 1K > bytes, > > >> even 16Kbytes? > > >> > > >> if the numbers are disk I/O bounded, then we almost have to multiply > the > > >> numbers by 64 or 1024? > > >> > > >> has any one done any other test on this? > > >> > > >> Thanks! > > >> > > > > > > > > >
