Hmmm, don't we have a performance benchmark for comparing with Bigtable? seems a while since someone updates that... I was just hoping that someone has a rough number in mind, so that i don't get any big surpirse when i try this out on the larger row size data.
Thanks! On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Ryan Rawson <ryano...@gmail.com> wrote: > And when I say 'test suite' i really mean "performance suite" -- that's > the > problem, test suites we've been running test the functionality, not the > speed in a repeatable/scientific manner. > > -ryan > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Ryan Rawson <ryano...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hey, > > > > The interesting thing is due to the way things are handled internally, > > small values are more challenging than large ones. The performance is > not > > strictly IO bound or limited, and you won't be seeing corresponding > > slowdowns on larger values. > > > > I encourage you to give download the alpha and give it a shot! Alas some > > of the developers are busy developing and haven't run a test suite this > > week. > > > > Thanks for your interest! > > -ryan > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Ski Gh3 <ski...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> In the NOSQL meetup slides the inserts and reads are really good, but > the > >> test is on single column and only 16bytes, > >> I wonder how the numbers would be affected if the row grows to 1K bytes, > >> even 16Kbytes? > >> > >> if the numbers are disk I/O bounded, then we almost have to multiply the > >> numbers by 64 or 1024? > >> > >> has any one done any other test on this? > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > > > > >
