Thanks for the clarification; didn't think that was true. _______________________________ David Engfer [817.360.4923] david.engfer@gmail http://www.engfers.com
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcry...@apache.org>wrote: > Whatever happened, something was way off the way they used HBase. > Adding machines adds latency whaaaaat? > > Also this is not the YCSB like everyone wrote, the post was updated with > this : > > Update: A few users that had more luck reading the details on the > slides have pointed out that this is not the YCBS benchmark, but > rather a new one developed by the presenter. Another detail that’s > important is that data used was rather small and could easily fit in > memory. > > It seems they released the code 2 days ago: > http://www.nosqlbenchmarking.com/ so I guess someone will have to look > at how they used HBase. Ryan found that the YCSB was adding a lot of > latency just the way they used the Result API (it's now fixed), maybe > we'll find the same here. > > Finally, in research the most important step is validation of the > results. They wrote that in the HBase case they "checked the logs" and > "ran the balancer". Basically their numbers were not validated, the > most basic thing to do would have been to contact the devs of each > nosql database like the YCSB guys did. > > J-D > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 7:01 AM, David Engfer <david.eng...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > http://nosql.mypopescu.com/post/3163240962/ycbs-benchmark-results-for-cassandra-hbase-mongodb > > > > Not sure what the issue was there with HBase, but would this be much > > improved if they tried it again with 0.90? > > > > Thanks, > > _______________________________ > > David Engfer > > [817.360.4923] > > david.engfer@gmail > > http://www.engfers.com > > >
