Oh, one other piece of feedback: maybe worth editing the title to say "vs Apache Parquet" instead of "vs Apache Impala" since in all cases you are using Impala as the query engine?
-Todd On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Boris, > > Thanks for publishing this. It's a great look at how an end user evaluates > Kudu. I appreciate that you cover both the pros and cons of the technology, > and glad to see that your conclusion leaves you excited about Kudu :) > > One quick note is that I think you'll be even more pleased when you > upgrade to a later version (eg Kudu 1.5). We've improved performance in > several areas and also improved scalability compared to the version you're > testing. TIMESTAMP is also supported now, with DECIMAL soon to follow. It > might be worth noting this as an addendum to the blog post if you feel like > it. > > -Todd > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Boris Tyukin <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi guys, >> >> we just finished testing Kudu, mostly comparing Kudu to Impala on >> HDFS/parquet. I wanted to share my blog post and results. We used typical >> (and real) healthcare data for the test, not a synthetic data which I think >> makes it is a bit more interesting. >> >> I welcome any feedback! >> >> http://boristyukin.com/benchmarking-apache-kudu-vs-apache-impala/ >> >> We are really impressed with Kudu and I wanted to take an opportunity to >> thank Kudu developers for such an amazing and much-needed product. >> >> Boris >> >> >> > > > -- > Todd Lipcon > Software Engineer, Cloudera > -- Todd Lipcon Software Engineer, Cloudera
