Sergi, Can you please clarify what reasons for performance degradation you meant? Does it worth additional investigation or this is a known issue?
-Val On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. >>> >> >> >
