[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3701?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16181488#comment-16181488 ]
ASF subversion and git services commented on GEODE-3701: -------------------------------------------------------- Commit b8dc595c6b1bdeae21f41fca1701e6bc91276f55 in geode's branch refs/heads/develop from Karen Miller [ https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=geode.git;h=b8dc595 ] GEODE-3701 Improve docs on hash index performance (#816) * GEODE-3701 Improve docs on hash index performance * GEODE-3701: Revise prose per review request > Improve docs on hash index performance > -------------------------------------- > > Key: GEODE-3701 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3701 > Project: Geode > Issue Type: Improvement > Reporter: Karen Smoler Miller > > Stronger language is warranted for hash indexes. > In a simple test, there was an order of magnitude difference in load and GII > performance between the two types of indexes. > Range: > Client: Loaded 2,000,000 entries in 20,487 ms > Server 1 Size: 1,272,322,680 bytes > Server 2: GIIed in 12,523 ms > Server 2 Size: 1,272,088,544 bytes > Hash: > Client: Loaded 2,000,000 entries in 257,016 ms > Server 1 Size: 1,228,010,280 bytes > Server 2: GIIed in 218,983 ms > Server 2 Size: 1,228,161,664 bytes > So, the difference in size was ~45MB, but the difference in time was an order > of magnitude. > Better wording suggested for file > developing/query_index/creating_hash_indexes.html: > Using hash index will degrade put performance and recovery time > substantially. If memory is not a concern, it is recommended that you use > range index. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029)