| Also it would be interesting to see result of *| SELECT count(*) from the query above in both cases.* (number of rows = 2 798 685) SELECT count(*) FROM postgresTable; 456 ms SELECT count(*) FROM postgresTable; 314 ms
SELECT count(*) FROM igniteTable; 9746 ms SELECT count(*) FROM igniteTable; 9664 ms Code of Jdbc Drvier (the same code for Ignite and postgresql - url connection is given from command line): http://pastebin.com/mYDSjziN My start sh file: http://pastebin.com/VmRM2sPQ My gc log file (following hint Magda): (file generated during hot loading and query via JDBC). http://pastebin.com/XicnNczV If you would like to see something else let me know. 2016-05-25 12:23 GMT+02:00 Alexei Scherbakov <alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com>: > For postgres test I mean initial jdbc query and result set traversal. > For Ignite I mean sql query and iterator traversal. > Also it would be interesting to see result of > *SELECT count(*) from the query above in both cases.* > > 2016-05-25 12:00 GMT+03:00 Tomek W <rrrtomtom...@gmail.com>: > >> [image: Obraz w treści 1] >> >> What code do you mean ? JDBC client ? >> >> 2016-05-25 10:25 GMT+02:00 Alexei Scherbakov < >> alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com>: >> >>> What's the batch size for postgresql ? >>> What's the size of one entry ? >>> Could you provide the test code for both postgres and Ignite (just the >>> query + read with the time estimation) ? >>> >>> 2016-05-25 11:13 GMT+03:00 Tomek W <rrrtomtom...@gmail.com>: >>> >>>> | How many entries are downloaded to the client in both cases? >>>> 3000 000 >>>> >>>> | Do the both queries involve network I/O ? >>>> No, I have only local one server (for testing purpose). >>>> >>>> >>>> 2016-05-25 9:59 GMT+02:00 Alexei Scherbakov < >>>> alexey.scherbak...@gmail.com>: >>>> >>>>> SELECT * is not really a good test query. >>>>> It's result can be affected not only by engine performance. >>>>> >>>>> How many entries are downloaded to the client in both cases? >>>>> Do the both queries involve network I/O ? >>>>> >>>>> 2016-05-25 7:58 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dma...@gridgain.com>: >>>>> >>>>>> In general Ignite is designed to be used in a distributed environment >>>>>> when gigabytes or terabytes of dataset is spread across many cluster >>>>>> nodes >>>>>> and SQL queries executed across the cluster should be faster since >>>>>> resources of all the machines will be used and as a result a query should >>>>>> be completed quicker. In your scenario you just have only a single >>>>>> cluster >>>>>> node and in fact comparing performance of PostgreSQL and H2 (engine that >>>>>> is >>>>>> used by Ignite SQL) and I can consider that Ignite SQL can work slightly >>>>>> slowly but this in is not Ignite usage scenario. >>>>>> >>>>>> However if you try to create a cluster of several nodes running on >>>>>> different physical machines, pre-load gigabytes of data there and compare >>>>>> Ignite SQL and PostgresSQL you should see performance improvements on >>>>>> Ignite side. >>>>>> >>>>>> In any case taking into account the advise above do the following: >>>>>> - execute “EXPLAIN” query to see that the index is chose properly [1]; >>>>>> - H2 console will allow you to see how fast a query is presently >>>>>> executed on a single node removing several Ignite layers [2]; >>>>>> - check if you have any GC pauses during query execution since it can >>>>>> affect execution time [3] >>>>>> >>>>>> Also share the objects you use as keys and values. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/sql-queries#using-explain >>>>>> [2] >>>>>> https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/sql-queries#using-h2-debug-console >>>>>> [3] >>>>>> https://apacheignite.readme.io/v1.6/docs/jvm-and-system-tuning#section-detailed-garbage-collection-stats >>>>>> >>>>>> — >>>>>> Denis >>>>>> >>>>>> On May 25, 2016, at 3:23 AM, Tomek W <rrrtomtom...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> +==============================================================================================+ >>>>>> | Node ID8(@), IP | CPUs | Heap Used | CPU Load | Up >>>>>> Time | Size | Hi/Mi/Rd/Wr | >>>>>> >>>>>> +==============================================================================================+ >>>>>> | 0F0AAF99(@n0), 127.0.0.1 | 8 | 54.50 % | 3.23 % | >>>>>> 00:13:13:49 | 3000000 | Hi: 0 | >>>>>> | | | | >>>>>> | | | Mi: 0 | >>>>>> | | | | >>>>>> | | | Rd: 0 | >>>>>> | | | | >>>>>> | | | Wr: 0 | >>>>>> >>>>>> +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I followed your hints. Actually, client doesn't require such many >>>>>> memory as before - thanks for it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> When it comes to configuration of server, I also followed your hints, >>>>>> results: >>>>>> >>>>>> Querying is done by JDBC Client. In ignite and postgresql I have >>>>>> single index on column A. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ignite: SELECT * FROM table WHERE A > 1345 takes 6s. >>>>>> Postgres: SELECT * FROM table WHERE A > 1345 takes 4s. >>>>>> >>>>>> As you can see, postgres is still bettter than Ignite. I show you >>>>>> significant fragments of my configuration: >>>>>> http://pastebin.com/EQC4JPWR >>>>>> >>>>>> And xml for server file: >>>>>> http://pastebin.com/enR9h5J4 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Try to consider why postgresql is still better, please. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Alexei Scherbakov >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Alexei Scherbakov >>> >> >> > > > -- > > Best regards, > Alexei Scherbakov >
