On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Ulanov, Alexander <alexander.ula...@hp.com > wrote:
> > > It seems that there is a nice improvement with Tungsten enabled given that > data is persisted in memory 2x and 3x. However, the improvement is not that > nice for parquet, it is 1.5x. What’s interesting, with Tungsten enabled > performance of in-memory data and parquet data aggregation is similar. > Could anyone comment on this? It seems counterintuitive to me. > > > > Local performance was not as good as Reynold had. I have around 1.5x, he > had 5x. However, local mode is not interesting. > > > > I think a large part of that is coming from the pressure created by JVM GC. Putting more data in-memory makes GC worse, unless GC is well tuned.
