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 102
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 giv
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 wrote:
> Hey,
>
> The interesting thing is due to the
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 5:5
>From the talk given at hadoop summit:
Fat Table: 1000 Rows with 10 Columns,1MB values
Sequential insert – 68 seconds (68 ms/row)
Random reads – 56.92 ms/row (average)
Full scan – 35 seconds (3.53 seconds/100 rows, 35ms/row)
so for 1 MB values, we are getting a value in 56ms. Scans in 35ms/row
That's really cool~
Thanks for the info, Ryan!!!
Cheers,
Ski Gh
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Ryan Rawson wrote:
> From the talk given at hadoop summit:
>
> Fat Table: 1000 Rows with 10 Columns,1MB values
> Sequential insert – 68 seconds (68 ms/row)
> Random reads – 56.92 ms/row (average)
>
