The graph cited below was more than 1 year old. FYI
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:01 AM, S Ahmed <[email protected]> wrote: > Just to be clear, I realize benchmarks are not always the best way to gauge > performance etc. since there are many factors involved, but I have > generally seen a big diff in write throughput between the two (of the > bencharks that I have read). > > For example: > http://www.cubrid.org/blog/dev-platform/nosql-benchmarking/(chart: > http://www.cubrid.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/db-test-results.png) > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:38 AM, S Ahmed <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I've read articles online where I see cassandra doing like 20K writers > > per > > > second, and hbase around 2-3K. > > > > Numbers with 0 context don't mean much, if at all. > > > > > > > > I understand both systems have their strenghts, but I am curious as to > > what > > > is holding hbase from reaching similiar results? > > > > > > Is it HDFS that is the issue? Or hbase does certain things (to its > > > advantage) that slows the write path down? > > > > Our writes are generally quite fast, I think at the moment some > > improvements can be made at the client level. I did some tests last > > year and I could get better throughput with the asynchbase client > > compared to the normal Java client because the former has call queues > > per region server. Both tests were using the same region servers, > > uploading the same data set. > > > > J-D > > >
