You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org> on 2011/12/15 02:26:38 UTC
Early comparisons between 0.90 and 0.92
Hey guys,
I was doing some comparisons between 0.90.5 and 0.92.0, mainly
regarding reads. The numbers are kinda irrelevant but the differences
are. BTW this is on CDH3u3 with random reads.
In 0.90.0, scanning 50M rows that are in the OS cache I go up to about
1.7M rows scanned per second.
In 0.92.0, scanning those same rows (meaning that I didn't run
compactions after migrating so it's picking the same data from the OS
cache), I scan about 1.1 rows per second.
0.92 is 50% slower when scanning.
In 0.90.0 random reading 50M rows that are OS cached I can do about
200k reads per second.
In 0.92.0, again with those same rows, I can go up to 260k per second.
0.92 is 30% faster when random reading.
I've been playing with that data set for a while and the numbers in
0.92.0 when using HFileV1 or V2 are pretty much the same meaning that
something else changed or the code that's generic to both did.
I'd like to be able to associate those differences to code changes in
order to understand what's going on. I would really appreciate if
others also took some time to test it out or to think about what could
cause this.
Thx,
J-D
Re: Early comparisons between 0.90 and 0.92
Posted by Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>.
I redid the tests with a 64KB block size and went all the way to
testing HFileV2 (which was badly missing).
Scans:
0.90: Bursts up to 1.7M
0.92 V1: Bursts up to 1.4M
0.92 V2: Bursts up to 1.8M
Random reads:
0.90: Steady at 165k
0.92 V1: Steady at 195k
0.92 V2: Steady at 245k
Basically, as long as people migrate to HFileV2 there won't be any problems.
I attached a profiler to see what was going on with scans and it seems
that 0.92 V1 uses a different path than both 0.90 and 0.92 V2. After
testing V2, I think it's not necessary to dig further into the issue
although it seems to be related to the usage of BufferedInputStream in
the faster paths.
Sorry for the original scare, hopefully this is useful for someone.
J-D
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I was doing some comparisons between 0.90.5 and 0.92.0, mainly
> regarding reads. The numbers are kinda irrelevant but the differences
> are. BTW this is on CDH3u3 with random reads.
>
> In 0.90.0, scanning 50M rows that are in the OS cache I go up to about
> 1.7M rows scanned per second.
>
> In 0.92.0, scanning those same rows (meaning that I didn't run
> compactions after migrating so it's picking the same data from the OS
> cache), I scan about 1.1 rows per second.
>
> 0.92 is 50% slower when scanning.
>
> In 0.90.0 random reading 50M rows that are OS cached I can do about
> 200k reads per second.
>
> In 0.92.0, again with those same rows, I can go up to 260k per second.
>
> 0.92 is 30% faster when random reading.
>
> I've been playing with that data set for a while and the numbers in
> 0.92.0 when using HFileV1 or V2 are pretty much the same meaning that
> something else changed or the code that's generic to both did.
>
>
> I'd like to be able to associate those differences to code changes in
> order to understand what's going on. I would really appreciate if
> others also took some time to test it out or to think about what could
> cause this.
>
> Thx,
>
> J-D
Re: Early comparisons between 0.90 and 0.92
Posted by Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>.
Like I said, I'm using local reads (HDFS-2246) and the data is
_already in the OS cache_.
J-D
2011/12/15 Vladimir Rodionov <vr...@carrieriq.com>:
> 200K random reads is way -way above of what we see in production.
> ?
>
> 1.1M row scan - as well. 10-20K per sec max when you run 'count' from HBase shell
>
> Is there any magic recipe I am not aware about yet?
>
> Best regards,
> Vladimir Rodionov
> Principal Platform Engineer
> Carrier IQ, www.carrieriq.com
> e-mail: vrodionov@carrieriq.com
>
> ________________________________________
> From: jdcryans@gmail.com [jdcryans@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jean-Daniel Cryans [jdcryans@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 7:20 PM
> To: dev@hbase.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Early comparisons between 0.90 and 0.92
>
> Yes and yes.
>
> J-D
> On Dec 14, 2011 5:52 PM, "Matt Corgan" <mc...@hotpads.com> wrote:
>
>> Regions are major compacted and have empty memstores, so no merging of
>> stores when reading?
>>
>>
>> 2011/12/14 Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>
>>
>> > Yes sorry 1.1M
>> >
>> > This is PE, the table is set to a block size of 4KB and block caching
>> > is disabled. Nothing else special in there.
>> >
>> > J-D
>> >
>> > 2011/12/14 <yu...@gmail.com>:
>> > > Thanks for the info, J-D.
>> > >
>> > > I guess the 1.1 below is in millions.
>> > >
>> > > Can you tell us more about your tables - bloom filters, etc ?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 在 Dec 14, 2011，5:26 PM，Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org> 写道：
>> > >
>> > >> Hey guys,
>> > >>
>> > >> I was doing some comparisons between 0.90.5 and 0.92.0, mainly
>> > >> regarding reads. The numbers are kinda irrelevant but the differences
>> > >> are. BTW this is on CDH3u3 with random reads.
>> > >>
>> > >> In 0.90.0, scanning 50M rows that are in the OS cache I go up to about
>> > >> 1.7M rows scanned per second.
>> > >>
>> > >> In 0.92.0, scanning those same rows (meaning that I didn't run
>> > >> compactions after migrating so it's picking the same data from the OS
>> > >> cache), I scan about 1.1 rows per second.
>> > >>
>> > >> 0.92 is 50% slower when scanning.
>> > >>
>> > >> In 0.90.0 random reading 50M rows that are OS cached I can do about
>> > >> 200k reads per second.
>> > >>
>> > >> In 0.92.0, again with those same rows, I can go up to 260k per second.
>> > >>
>> > >> 0.92 is 30% faster when random reading.
>> > >>
>> > >> I've been playing with that data set for a while and the numbers in
>> > >> 0.92.0 when using HFileV1 or V2 are pretty much the same meaning that
>> > >> something else changed or the code that's generic to both did.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> I'd like to be able to associate those differences to code changes in
>> > >> order to understand what's going on. I would really appreciate if
>> > >> others also took some time to test it out or to think about what could
>> > >> cause this.
>> > >>
>> > >> Thx,
>> > >>
>> > >> J-D
>> >
>>
>
> Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this message, including any attachments hereto, may be confidential and is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom this message is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent or designee of the intended recipient, please note that any review, use, disclosure or distribution of this message or its attachments, in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and/or Notifications@carrieriq.com and delete or destroy any copy of this message and its attachments.
RE: Early comparisons between 0.90 and 0.92
Posted by Vladimir Rodionov <vr...@carrieriq.com>.
200K random reads is way -way above of what we see in production.
?
1.1M row scan - as well. 10-20K per sec max when you run 'count' from HBase shell
Is there any magic recipe I am not aware about yet?
Best regards,
Vladimir Rodionov
Principal Platform Engineer
Carrier IQ, www.carrieriq.com
e-mail: vrodionov@carrieriq.com
________________________________________
From: jdcryans@gmail.com [jdcryans@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jean-Daniel Cryans [jdcryans@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 7:20 PM
To: dev@hbase.apache.org
Subject: Re: Early comparisons between 0.90 and 0.92
Yes and yes.
J-D
On Dec 14, 2011 5:52 PM, "Matt Corgan" <mc...@hotpads.com> wrote:
> Regions are major compacted and have empty memstores, so no merging of
> stores when reading?
>
>
> 2011/12/14 Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>
>
> > Yes sorry 1.1M
> >
> > This is PE, the table is set to a block size of 4KB and block caching
> > is disabled. Nothing else special in there.
> >
> > J-D
> >
> > 2011/12/14 <yu...@gmail.com>:
> > > Thanks for the info, J-D.
> > >
> > > I guess the 1.1 below is in millions.
> > >
> > > Can you tell us more about your tables - bloom filters, etc ?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 在 Dec 14, 2011，5:26 PM，Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org> 写道：
> > >
> > >> Hey guys,
> > >>
> > >> I was doing some comparisons between 0.90.5 and 0.92.0, mainly
> > >> regarding reads. The numbers are kinda irrelevant but the differences
> > >> are. BTW this is on CDH3u3 with random reads.
> > >>
> > >> In 0.90.0, scanning 50M rows that are in the OS cache I go up to about
> > >> 1.7M rows scanned per second.
> > >>
> > >> In 0.92.0, scanning those same rows (meaning that I didn't run
> > >> compactions after migrating so it's picking the same data from the OS
> > >> cache), I scan about 1.1 rows per second.
> > >>
> > >> 0.92 is 50% slower when scanning.
> > >>
> > >> In 0.90.0 random reading 50M rows that are OS cached I can do about
> > >> 200k reads per second.
> > >>
> > >> In 0.92.0, again with those same rows, I can go up to 260k per second.
> > >>
> > >> 0.92 is 30% faster when random reading.
> > >>
> > >> I've been playing with that data set for a while and the numbers in
> > >> 0.92.0 when using HFileV1 or V2 are pretty much the same meaning that
> > >> something else changed or the code that's generic to both did.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I'd like to be able to associate those differences to code changes in
> > >> order to understand what's going on. I would really appreciate if
> > >> others also took some time to test it out or to think about what could
> > >> cause this.
> > >>
> > >> Thx,
> > >>
> > >> J-D
> >
>
Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this message, including any attachments hereto, may be confidential and is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom this message is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent or designee of the intended recipient, please note that any review, use, disclosure or distribution of this message or its attachments, in any form, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and/or Notifications@carrieriq.com and delete or destroy any copy of this message and its attachments.
Re: Early comparisons between 0.90 and 0.92
Posted by Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>.
Yes and yes.
J-D
On Dec 14, 2011 5:52 PM, "Matt Corgan" <mc...@hotpads.com> wrote:
> Regions are major compacted and have empty memstores, so no merging of
> stores when reading?
>
>
> 2011/12/14 Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>
>
> > Yes sorry 1.1M
> >
> > This is PE, the table is set to a block size of 4KB and block caching
> > is disabled. Nothing else special in there.
> >
> > J-D
> >
> > 2011/12/14 <yu...@gmail.com>:
> > > Thanks for the info, J-D.
> > >
> > > I guess the 1.1 below is in millions.
> > >
> > > Can you tell us more about your tables - bloom filters, etc ?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 在 Dec 14, 2011，5:26 PM，Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org> 写道：
> > >
> > >> Hey guys,
> > >>
> > >> I was doing some comparisons between 0.90.5 and 0.92.0, mainly
> > >> regarding reads. The numbers are kinda irrelevant but the differences
> > >> are. BTW this is on CDH3u3 with random reads.
> > >>
> > >> In 0.90.0, scanning 50M rows that are in the OS cache I go up to about
> > >> 1.7M rows scanned per second.
> > >>
> > >> In 0.92.0, scanning those same rows (meaning that I didn't run
> > >> compactions after migrating so it's picking the same data from the OS
> > >> cache), I scan about 1.1 rows per second.
> > >>
> > >> 0.92 is 50% slower when scanning.
> > >>
> > >> In 0.90.0 random reading 50M rows that are OS cached I can do about
> > >> 200k reads per second.
> > >>
> > >> In 0.92.0, again with those same rows, I can go up to 260k per second.
> > >>
> > >> 0.92 is 30% faster when random reading.
> > >>
> > >> I've been playing with that data set for a while and the numbers in
> > >> 0.92.0 when using HFileV1 or V2 are pretty much the same meaning that
> > >> something else changed or the code that's generic to both did.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I'd like to be able to associate those differences to code changes in
> > >> order to understand what's going on. I would really appreciate if
> > >> others also took some time to test it out or to think about what could
> > >> cause this.
> > >>
> > >> Thx,
> > >>
> > >> J-D
> >
>
Re: Early comparisons between 0.90 and 0.92
Posted by Matt Corgan <mc...@hotpads.com>.
Regions are major compacted and have empty memstores, so no merging of
stores when reading?
2011/12/14 Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>
> Yes sorry 1.1M
>
> This is PE, the table is set to a block size of 4KB and block caching
> is disabled. Nothing else special in there.
>
> J-D
>
> 2011/12/14 <yu...@gmail.com>:
> > Thanks for the info, J-D.
> >
> > I guess the 1.1 below is in millions.
> >
> > Can you tell us more about your tables - bloom filters, etc ?
> >
> >
> >
> > 在 Dec 14, 2011，5:26 PM，Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org> 写道：
> >
> >> Hey guys,
> >>
> >> I was doing some comparisons between 0.90.5 and 0.92.0, mainly
> >> regarding reads. The numbers are kinda irrelevant but the differences
> >> are. BTW this is on CDH3u3 with random reads.
> >>
> >> In 0.90.0, scanning 50M rows that are in the OS cache I go up to about
> >> 1.7M rows scanned per second.
> >>
> >> In 0.92.0, scanning those same rows (meaning that I didn't run
> >> compactions after migrating so it's picking the same data from the OS
> >> cache), I scan about 1.1 rows per second.
> >>
> >> 0.92 is 50% slower when scanning.
> >>
> >> In 0.90.0 random reading 50M rows that are OS cached I can do about
> >> 200k reads per second.
> >>
> >> In 0.92.0, again with those same rows, I can go up to 260k per second.
> >>
> >> 0.92 is 30% faster when random reading.
> >>
> >> I've been playing with that data set for a while and the numbers in
> >> 0.92.0 when using HFileV1 or V2 are pretty much the same meaning that
> >> something else changed or the code that's generic to both did.
> >>
> >>
> >> I'd like to be able to associate those differences to code changes in
> >> order to understand what's going on. I would really appreciate if
> >> others also took some time to test it out or to think about what could
> >> cause this.
> >>
> >> Thx,
> >>
> >> J-D
>
Re: Early comparisons between 0.90 and 0.92
Posted by Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>.
Yes sorry 1.1M
This is PE, the table is set to a block size of 4KB and block caching
is disabled. Nothing else special in there.
J-D
2011/12/14 <yu...@gmail.com>:
> Thanks for the info, J-D.
>
> I guess the 1.1 below is in millions.
>
> Can you tell us more about your tables - bloom filters, etc ?
>
>
>
> 在 Dec 14, 2011，5:26 PM，Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org> 写道：
>
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> I was doing some comparisons between 0.90.5 and 0.92.0, mainly
>> regarding reads. The numbers are kinda irrelevant but the differences
>> are. BTW this is on CDH3u3 with random reads.
>>
>> In 0.90.0, scanning 50M rows that are in the OS cache I go up to about
>> 1.7M rows scanned per second.
>>
>> In 0.92.0, scanning those same rows (meaning that I didn't run
>> compactions after migrating so it's picking the same data from the OS
>> cache), I scan about 1.1 rows per second.
>>
>> 0.92 is 50% slower when scanning.
>>
>> In 0.90.0 random reading 50M rows that are OS cached I can do about
>> 200k reads per second.
>>
>> In 0.92.0, again with those same rows, I can go up to 260k per second.
>>
>> 0.92 is 30% faster when random reading.
>>
>> I've been playing with that data set for a while and the numbers in
>> 0.92.0 when using HFileV1 or V2 are pretty much the same meaning that
>> something else changed or the code that's generic to both did.
>>
>>
>> I'd like to be able to associate those differences to code changes in
>> order to understand what's going on. I would really appreciate if
>> others also took some time to test it out or to think about what could
>> cause this.
>>
>> Thx,
>>
>> J-D
Re: Early comparisons between 0.90 and 0.92
Posted by yu...@gmail.com.
Thanks for the info, J-D.
I guess the 1.1 below is in millions.
Can you tell us more about your tables - bloom filters, etc ?
在 Dec 14, 2011，5:26 PM，Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org> 写道：
> Hey guys,
>
> I was doing some comparisons between 0.90.5 and 0.92.0, mainly
> regarding reads. The numbers are kinda irrelevant but the differences
> are. BTW this is on CDH3u3 with random reads.
>
> In 0.90.0, scanning 50M rows that are in the OS cache I go up to about
> 1.7M rows scanned per second.
>
> In 0.92.0, scanning those same rows (meaning that I didn't run
> compactions after migrating so it's picking the same data from the OS
> cache), I scan about 1.1 rows per second.
>
> 0.92 is 50% slower when scanning.
>
> In 0.90.0 random reading 50M rows that are OS cached I can do about
> 200k reads per second.
>
> In 0.92.0, again with those same rows, I can go up to 260k per second.
>
> 0.92 is 30% faster when random reading.
>
> I've been playing with that data set for a while and the numbers in
> 0.92.0 when using HFileV1 or V2 are pretty much the same meaning that
> something else changed or the code that's generic to both did.
>
>
> I'd like to be able to associate those differences to code changes in
> order to understand what's going on. I would really appreciate if
> others also took some time to test it out or to think about what could
> cause this.
>
> Thx,
>
> J-D