[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6553?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13947166#comment-13947166 ]
Aleksey Yeschenko commented on CASSANDRA-6553: ---------------------------------------------- [~rhatch] Thanks. Counter writes at uber contention will look decent (in these graphs) with CASSANDRA-6880, but why the slower reads - I have no idea. The read path for counters hasn't really changed since 2.0, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Could be CASSANDRA-6746, could be something else. As I said before, I'd like to see the same a similar set of benchmarks on non-counter tables, to see if regular reads would show same weird read results 'under contention'. > Benchmark counter improvements (counters++) > ------------------------------------------- > > Key: CASSANDRA-6553 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6553 > Project: Cassandra > Issue Type: Test > Reporter: Ryan McGuire > Assignee: Russ Hatch > Fix For: 2.1 beta2 > > Attachments: 6553.uber.quorum.bdplab.read.png, > 6553.uber.quorum.bdplab.write.png, high_cl_one.png, high_cl_quorum.png, > low_cl_one.png, low_cl_quorum.png, tracing.txt, uber_cl_one.png, > uber_cl_quorum.png > > > Benchmark the difference in performance between CASSANDRA-6504 and trunk. > * Updating totally unrelated counters (different partitions) > * Updating the same counters a lot (same cells in the same partition) > * Different cells in the same few partitions (hot counter partition) > benchmark: > https://github.com/apache/cassandra/tree/1218bcacba7edefaf56cf8440d0aea5794c89a1e > (old counters) > compared to: > https://github.com/apache/cassandra/tree/714c423360c36da2a2b365efaf9c5c4f623ed133 > (new counters) > So far, the above changes should only affect the write path. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.2#6252)