Ok, so the mention of using both 1.6 and 1.7 is what is confusing me.
Yes, both versions of the software should equally benefit from using the
Native library for live ingest.
The Native Maps are going to benefit the write-path significantly more
than the read-path. Is Rya maybe doing bulk-loads (creating Accumulo files)?
Brown, Scott M (IS) wrote:
We're testing identical systems, one with 1.6, and one with 1.7 since it was
mentioned (and I can't find the link again) that using the native library
instead of java library gave the gain.. we are testing my performing a large
rya ingest thru accumulo, and also using Rya Webview and retrieving large
queries.. the ingest is ~90 min, so a good run, and the query is ~20k record
return.
-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Elser [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:02 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: EXT :Re: 1.7 native library performance boost
Sorry, I'm not following. Was this a typo: "With *1.6*, ... native library can add
up to 40%"?
What is the test you're running to evaluate performance? What are the numbers
you're seeing for each scenario you're testing?
Brown, Scott M (IS) wrote:
So with 1.7, we noticed the statement that utilizing the native library can add
up to 40% performance increase. With two identical systems, one with 1.6 one
with 1.7, we're not seeing any notable difference at all with either queries or
large ingests.
Any idea what operations can take advantage, or what circumstances the
performance boost comes into play?
