Hi, plz append ignite and py client versions.
>Hi,
>I made a speed comparison of retrieving data from Apache Ignite using several
>methods. All records are in one table, I did not use any WHERE condition, only
>a SELECT * FROM TABLE XYZ LIMIT 20000.
>Test results are:
>Apache Ignite
>* Apache Ignite REST API - 0.52 seconds
>* JDBC - 4 seconds
>* Python pyignite - 40 seconds !!!
>pseudocode in Python using pyignite:
>client = Client(username="ignite", password="pass", use_ssl=False)
>client.connect('localhost', 10800)
>
>cursor=client.sql('SELECT * FROM TABLE_XYZ LIMIT 20000')
>for row in cursor:
> pass
>
>After that I made a speed comparison of retrieving data from PostgreSQL using
>JDBC and psycopg2 Python package. SQL select is same, SELECT * FROM TABLE XYZ
>LIMIT 20000
>PostgreSQL
>* JDBC - 3 seconds
>* Python psycopg2 using fetchall - 3 seconds
>* Python psycopg2 using fetchone - 4 seconds
>pseudocode in Python using psycopg2:
>import psycopg2
>
>conn = psycopg2.connect(database=DB_NAME,
> user=DB_USER,
> password=DB_PASS,
> host=DB_HOST,
> port=DB_PORT)
>
>cur = conn.cursor()
>cur.execute("SELECT * FROM TABLE_XYZ LIMIT 20000")
>rows = cur.fetchall()
>for data in rows:
> pass
>
>I can conclude that the pyignite implementation has much worse performance
>compared to psycopg2 tests. The performance difference on PostgreSQL between
>Java JDBC and Python psycopg2 is negligible.
>The performance difference on Apache Ignite between Java JDBC and Python
>pyignite is very big.
>Please if someone can comment on the tests, did I do something wrong or are
>these results expected? How can such large differences in execution times be
>explained? Do you have any suggestions to get better results using pyignite?
>Thank you
