On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 2:00 AM, Sergi Vladykin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ok, I see. Yes, I can name at least few things in off-heap > sql indexes that make things slower and less scalable > than on-heap ones, but I'm not sure when we will be > able to improve them. > I actually do not see why the performance is degrading with off-heap. Valentin, have we been able to take the code and reproduce it? It would be worthwhile, in my view, to get to the bottom of this. > > > Sergi > > 2015-09-16 21:35 GMT+03:00 javadevmtl <[email protected]>: > >> Sergy, point taken, but what i'm trying to point out is the following... >> >> In on-heap mode I can easily insert and query 0-15,000,000 without any >> performance loss. And if anything even more then 15 million entries in the >> cache. >> >> The off-heap cache though instantly within a few thousand entries it's >> performance starts to degrade. >> >> Also for on-heap the query latency time stays consistent. So 1 entry or 15 >> million entries the query takes about the same time. This is not true for >> the off-heap it slowly degrades. >> >> To be clear we are talking about SQL queries and indexes. >> >> I posted my analysis in the threads above + the github code to reproduce >> it. >> I'm willing to even do a join.me to show you. I can reproduce it 100% of >> the >> time. >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/SQL-Performance-indexing-performance-on-heap-vs-off-heap-tp1352p1419.html >> Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > >
