Yeah it's truly super wild! Here's the code: http://pastebin.com/bnB53UQz
You can see the line that's adding the string: fstBuilder.add(new BytesRef(date), new Long(x)); On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Matt Corgan <mcor...@hotpads.com> wrote: > Jason - are you feeding it that whole string for each date? Input data is > 17 bytes per record * 50mm records = 850MB, and that reduces to 984 bytes? > Is it possible to compress by that much? Maybe I'm missing something about > how the FST works. > > Matt > > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Jason Rutherglen <jason.rutherg...@gmail.com >> wrote: > >> Also the next thing to measure with the FST is the key lookup speed. >> I'm not sure what that'd look like, or how to compare with HBase right >> now? >> >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Jason Rutherglen >> <jason.rutherg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Here's a nice preliminary number with the FST, 50 million dates of the >> > form yyyyMMddHHmmssSSS, with each incremented by one millisecond. The >> > FST is 984 bytes, with an incrementing long to point to the presumably >> > MMap'd value data. This's a bit crazy. >> > >> > Perhaps we should try other increments as well? Given that HBase keys >> > especially are probably close increments of each other, I think the >> > FST can always be loaded into RAM with pointers out to the actual >> > values. >> > >> >
