@Pouria: Please share your findings here when you check this out - this
is quite strange, since none of the other performance results that have
been obtained on the system have looked anything like this. (I will try
to look at this too at some point, but will unfortunately be MIA from
June 1-15 first.) Weird....
On 5/26/16 9:20 AM, Pouria Pirzadeh wrote:
Hi Magnus,
Thanks for your email and sharing the information.
If it is Ok with you, Would you please share with us the exact DDL
(including type definitions, dataset and index definitions) and exact
AQL queries that you ran against AsterixDB ?
I am just interested in checking the query plans and see what ended up
being run as jobs.
Thanks.
Pouria
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Magnus Kongshem
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi,
There has been a lot of questions from me regarding AsterixDB and
I thank all of you who have answered me. So it is time for me to
contribute with some obeservations. I am writing my master thesis
where I test multiple databases on a large data set. I should also
mention that I have installed AsterixDB on a single machine.
What I have observed is that asterixDB has a "poorer" read
performance when I specify indexes on the data set compared to not
implementing any indexes. See the attachment for details, its an
excerpt of my thesis explaining and describing the queries, the
indexes and the test results. Any thoughts on these test results?
I also cannot help to notice that the read performance for a query
querying a small portion, medium portion and large portion of the
data set is very similar. The largest query finds 75 million
records and the smallest query finds 3.5 million records, but
almost have the same read performance. How can this be?
Perhaps you can use these test results in the future development
of asterixDB.
I you would like, I can send you my final thesis when it's done.
--
Mvh
Magnus Alderslyst Kongshem
+47 415 65 906 <tel:%2B47%20415%2065%20906>
