Good question, not sure about that. Indexing uses lucene behind the scenes, and adds some overhead.
Michael Am 17.01.2014 um 02:42 schrieb Bill Scheidel <[email protected]>: > So does that mean multiple fsync operations are done? I'm trying to figure > out what would cause the extra 110ms of delay between no indexing and > indexing one property. > > On Thursday, January 16, 2014 5:39:32 PM UTC-8, Michael Hunger wrote: > Because it is transactional. > > So during your tx whenever things are changed / created that correspond to > the configured auto-indexing properties they are written to the index. > > Michael > > Am 17.01.2014 um 02:35 schrieb Bill Scheidel <[email protected]>: > >> Hmm... turning off node_auto_indexing drops it from 150ms to 40ms. Why >> would auto indexing block a request? >> >> On Thursday, January 16, 2014 5:07:48 PM UTC-8, Bill Scheidel wrote: >> My hdparm results are 118 MB/sec which isn't horrible, but it seems like >> disk latency is the only thing that matters. I guess I'll try going back to >> the stock settings and moving it over to an SSD and see what happens. >> >> On Thursday, January 16, 2014 4:34:30 PM UTC-8, Wes Freeman wrote: >> My macbook's virtualbox (running centos) got good results too (99% <20ms, >> 50% <7ms). Was hoping for some weirdness. It is running on an ssd (vintage >> 2011 macbook pro 13"), hdparm 250MB/sec, so not a great comparison. Only has >> 800MB allocated for the VM RAM, using Neo4j stock settings. >> >> Wes >> >> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Bill Scheidel <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yeah, definitely not great. Odd though since I never had a problem when >> working with Postgres or Mongo and they force things to disk as well. Never >> had local requests take more than a couple of ms and then I switch over to >> Neo4j and its almost unusable. There are no flags to change the behavior >> for dev/test machines? >> >> >> On Thursday, January 16, 2014 4:00:10 PM UTC-8, Michael Hunger wrote: >> Not so good latency during the test, or? >> >> Here is my ioping (cool never heard of that one, nice tool). >> >> w/o ab >> --- /tmp/ (hfs /dev/disk0s2) ioping statistics --- >> 11 requests completed in 10.2 s, 32.1 k iops, 125.3 mb/s >> min/avg/max/mdev = 21 us / 31 us / 50 us / 7 us >> >> w ab >> 29 requests completed in 29.0 s, 33.1 k iops, 129.3 mb/s >> min/avg/max/mdev = 20 us / 30 us / 109 us / 17 us >> >> Am 17.01.2014 um 00:54 schrieb Bill Scheidel <[email protected]>: >> >> > And this is ioping without the ab test running: >> > >> > 31 requests completed in 30.5 s, 3.2 k iops, 12.5 mb/s >> > min/avg/max/mdev = 190 us / 312 us / 477 us / 63 us >> > >> > On Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:51:32 PM UTC-8, Bill Scheidel wrote: >> > I ran vmstat while running the ab test: >> > >> > procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- >> > ----cpu---- >> > r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy >> > id wa >> > 0 1 0 2429284 161572 2133284 0 0 22 75 98 354 9 8 >> > 80 2 >> > >> > I also ran ioping to check disk latency while the ab test was running: >> > >> > 190 requests completed in 3.3 min, 37 iops, 151.9 kb/s >> > min/avg/max/mdev = 192 us / 26.3 ms / 178.1 ms / 26.5 ms >> > >> > Results from the ab run: >> > >> > Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) >> > 50% 150 >> > 66% 158 >> > 75% 166 >> > 80% 168 >> > 90% 209 >> > 95% 276 >> > 98% 300 >> > 99% 324 >> > 100% 366 (longest request) >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:33:55 PM UTC-8, Michael Hunger wrote: >> > Let's continue this discussion here. >> > >> > To collect the other information so far: >> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21145723/neo4j-2-0-0-poor-performance-for-dev-test-in-a-virtual-machine >> > >> > The GH issue you raised with Wes' and my answers: >> > https://github.com/neo4j/neo4j/issues/1829 >> > >> > My "ab" tests: https://gist.github.com/jexp/8452037 >> > Wes' numbers: >> > https://github.com/neo4j/neo4j/issues/1829#issuecomment-32564561 >> > >> > Your messages.log looks good to me. >> > >> > So it might be related to disk performance, could you run vmstat or >> > similar while running the ab test? >> > >> > I think it is related to the forced fsync at commit which can be hit by a >> > higher disk latency? >> > >> > Michael >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> > "Neo4j" group. >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> > email to [email protected]. >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Neo4j" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Neo4j" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Neo4j" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Neo4j" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
