Hi Preston, That sounds pretty good! Could you give a high-level description what changes contributed to the 40% improvement in single-thread performance?
Cheers, Till On Jan 30, 2014, at 11:45 PM, Eldon Carman <[email protected]> wrote: > The profiler tweaks and code changes have allowed me to identify some of > the slower areas of VXQuery. The changes have been committed in my branch > on git. The new branch performs 40% better than the previous round of tests > on ~500MB data set running filter and aggregate queries. > > In addition to running faster, VXQuery supports local partitioning. A 45% > decrease in query time is seen when going from one partition to two > partitions. A 62% decrease in query time is seen when going from on > partition to four partitions. VXQuery's performance almost double using two > partitions. Four partition almost triples the performance. The gain for > more partition starts to diminish. The speed improvement is related to a > relative increase in cpu utilization during the queries execution. > > Here are results for the new VXQuery version compared to saxon: > > Query q00 (500mb) > --------------- > 2m11.937s Saxon > 9m07.037s VXQuery - 1 partition > 4m56.224s VXQuery - 2 partitions > 3m28.340s VXQuery - 4 partitions > > Query q01 (500mb) > --------------- > 2m07.096s Saxon > 5m30.705s VXQuery - 1 partition > 2m53.382s VXQuery - 2 partitions > 1m58.667s VXQuery - 4 partitions > > Query q02 (500mb) > --------------- > 2m11.029s Saxon > 8m17.377s VXQuery - 1 partition > 4m34.760s VXQuery - 2 partitions > 3m09.778s VXQuery - 4 partitions > > Query q03 (500mb) > --------------- > 1m58.784s Saxon > 5m55.061s VXQuery - 1 partition > 3m05.709s VXQuery - 2 partitions > 2m08.478s VXQuery - 4 partitions
