Josh helped me get up and running w/ YCSB and I Am seeing very different results. I am going to make a pull req to Josh's GH repo to add a Readme w/ what I learned from Josh in IRC.
The link below is the Accumulo config I used for running a local 1.8.0 instance. https://gist.github.com/keith-turner/4678a0aac2a2a0e240ea5d73285743ab I created splits user1~ user2~ user3~ user4~ user5~ user6~ user7~ user8~ user9~ AND then compacted the table. Below is the performance I saw with a single batch scanner (configured 1 partition). The batch scanner has 10 threads. 2016-09-12 12:36:41,079 [client.ClientConfiguration] WARN : Found no client.conf in default paths. Using default client configuration values. 2016-09-12 12:36:41,428 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Connected to Accumulo 2016-09-12 12:36:41,429 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Computing ranges 2016-09-12 12:36:48,059 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Calculated all rows: Found 1000000 rows 2016-09-12 12:36:48,096 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Shuffled all rows 2016-09-12 12:36:48,116 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : All ranges calculated: 3000 ranges found 2016-09-12 12:36:48,118 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 1 range partitions using a pool of 1 threads 2016-09-12 12:36:49,372 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed in 1252 ms 2016-09-12 12:36:49,372 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 1 range partitions using a pool of 1 threads 2016-09-12 12:36:50,561 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed in 1188 ms 2016-09-12 12:36:50,561 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 1 range partitions using a pool of 1 threads 2016-09-12 12:36:51,741 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed in 1179 ms 2016-09-12 12:36:51,741 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 1 range partitions using a pool of 1 threads 2016-09-12 12:36:52,974 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed in 1233 ms 2016-09-12 12:36:52,974 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 1 range partitions using a pool of 1 threads 2016-09-12 12:36:54,146 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed in 1171 ms Below is the performance I saw with 6 batch scanners. Each batch scanner has 10 threads. 2016-09-12 13:58:21,061 [client.ClientConfiguration] WARN : Found no client.conf in default paths. Using default client configuration values. 2016-09-12 13:58:21,380 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Connected to Accumulo 2016-09-12 13:58:21,381 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Computing ranges 2016-09-12 13:58:28,571 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Calculated all rows: Found 1000000 rows 2016-09-12 13:58:28,606 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Shuffled all rows 2016-09-12 13:58:28,632 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : All ranges calculated: 3000 ranges found 2016-09-12 13:58:28,634 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6 range partitions using a pool of 6 threads 2016-09-12 13:58:30,273 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed in 1637 ms 2016-09-12 13:58:30,273 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6 range partitions using a pool of 6 threads 2016-09-12 13:58:31,883 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed in 1609 ms 2016-09-12 13:58:31,883 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6 range partitions using a pool of 6 threads 2016-09-12 13:58:33,422 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed in 1539 ms 2016-09-12 13:58:33,422 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6 range partitions using a pool of 6 threads 2016-09-12 13:58:34,994 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed in 1571 ms 2016-09-12 13:58:34,994 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6 range partitions using a pool of 6 threads 2016-09-12 13:58:36,512 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed in 1517 ms Below is the performance I saw with 6 threads each using a scanner. 2016-09-12 14:01:14,972 [client.ClientConfiguration] WARN : Found no client.conf in default paths. Using default client configuration values. 2016-09-12 14:01:15,287 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Connected to Accumulo 2016-09-12 14:01:15,288 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Computing ranges 2016-09-12 14:01:22,309 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Calculated all rows: Found 1000000 rows 2016-09-12 14:01:22,352 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Shuffled all rows 2016-09-12 14:01:22,373 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : All ranges calculated: 3000 ranges found 2016-09-12 14:01:22,376 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6 range partitions using a pool of 6 threads 2016-09-12 14:01:25,696 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed in 3318 ms 2016-09-12 14:01:25,696 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6 range partitions using a pool of 6 threads 2016-09-12 14:01:29,001 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed in 3305 ms 2016-09-12 14:01:29,001 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6 range partitions using a pool of 6 threads 2016-09-12 14:01:31,824 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed in 2822 ms 2016-09-12 14:01:31,824 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6 range partitions using a pool of 6 threads 2016-09-12 14:01:34,207 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed in 2383 ms 2016-09-12 14:01:34,207 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6 range partitions using a pool of 6 threads 2016-09-12 14:01:36,548 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed in 2340 ms On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sven, et al: > > So, it would appear that I have been able to reproduce this one (better late > than never, I guess...). tl;dr Serially using Scanners to do point lookups > instead of a BatchScanner is ~20x faster. This sounds like a pretty serious > performance issue to me. > > Here's a general outline for what I did. > > * Accumulo 1.8.0 > * Created a table with 1M rows, each row with 10 columns using YCSB > (workloada) > * Split the table into 9 tablets > * Computed the set of all rows in the table > > For a number of iterations: > * Shuffle this set of rows > * Choose the first N rows > * Construct an equivalent set of Ranges from the set of Rows, choosing a > random column (0-9) > * Partition the N rows into X collections > * Submit X tasks to query one partition of the N rows (to a thread pool with > X fixed threads) > > I have two implementations of these tasks. One, where all ranges in a > partition are executed via one BatchWriter. A second where each range is > executed in serial using a Scanner. The numbers speak for themselves. > > ** BatchScanners ** > 2016-09-10 17:51:38,811 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Shuffled all > rows > 2016-09-10 17:51:38,843 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : All ranges > calculated: 3000 ranges found > 2016-09-10 17:51:38,846 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6 > range partitions using a pool of 6 threads > 2016-09-10 17:52:19,025 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed > in 40178 ms > 2016-09-10 17:52:19,025 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6 > range partitions using a pool of 6 threads > 2016-09-10 17:53:01,321 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed > in 42296 ms > 2016-09-10 17:53:01,321 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6 > range partitions using a pool of 6 threads > 2016-09-10 17:53:47,414 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed > in 46094 ms > 2016-09-10 17:53:47,415 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6 > range partitions using a pool of 6 threads > 2016-09-10 17:54:35,118 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed > in 47704 ms > 2016-09-10 17:54:35,119 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6 > range partitions using a pool of 6 threads > 2016-09-10 17:55:24,339 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed > in 49221 ms > > ** Scanners ** > 2016-09-10 17:57:23,867 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Shuffled all > rows > 2016-09-10 17:57:23,898 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : All ranges > calculated: 3000 ranges found > 2016-09-10 17:57:23,903 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6 > range partitions using a pool of 6 threads > 2016-09-10 17:57:26,738 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed > in 2833 ms > 2016-09-10 17:57:26,738 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6 > range partitions using a pool of 6 threads > 2016-09-10 17:57:29,275 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed > in 2536 ms > 2016-09-10 17:57:29,275 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6 > range partitions using a pool of 6 threads > 2016-09-10 17:57:31,425 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed > in 2150 ms > 2016-09-10 17:57:31,425 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6 > range partitions using a pool of 6 threads > 2016-09-10 17:57:33,487 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed > in 2061 ms > 2016-09-10 17:57:33,487 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Executing 6 > range partitions using a pool of 6 threads > 2016-09-10 17:57:35,628 [joshelser.YcsbBatchScanner] INFO : Queries executed > in 2140 ms > > Query code is available https://github.com/joshelser/accumulo-range-binning > > > Sven Hodapp wrote: >> >> Hi Keith, >> >> I've tried it with 1, 2 or 10 threads. Unfortunately there where no >> amazing differences. >> Maybe it's a problem with the table structure? For example it may happen >> that one row id (e.g. a sentence) has several thousand column families. Can >> this affect the seek performance? >> >> So for my initial example it has about 3000 row ids to seek, which will >> return about 500k entries. If I filter for specific column families (e.g. a >> document without annotations) it will return about 5k entries, but the seek >> time will only be halved. >> Are there to much column families to seek it fast? >> >> Thanks! >> >> Regards, >> Sven >> >
