phoenix-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Taylor <jamestay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Performance graphs
Date Thu, 27 Mar 2014 21:23:25 GMT
One other factor to keep in mind: these performance graphs in general
measure a simple aggregate query that runs over all of the data. This is
practically the "best" case scenario for these other products. For queries
which are point lookups, the difference in performance will be much more
dramatic: on the order of milliseconds for Phoenix versus tens of minutes
for the other tools. I encourage you to do your own benchmarking. The
reason (besides the obvious one that HBase is really good at point
lookups), is that Phoenix is able to narrow down the set of rows being
considered when you have a composite row key, while often other tools
aren't.

Thanks,
James


On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Localhost shell <
universal.localhost@gmail.com> wrote:

> It will be great if you can share the performance matrix that you have
> (even 1 year old. something is better than nothing.)
> Thanks!
>
> --Harshit
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Mujtaba Chohan <mujtaba@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> We haven't done thorough performance comparison recently apart from what
>> is listed on Phoenix performance<http://phoenix.incubator.apache.org/performance.html>
page.
>> For Shark, let me see if I can find basic number that we tried about a year
>> back. On top of my head what I can recall is that Shark was faster only for
>> small in-memory tables when compared to Phoenix, for standard tables,
>> Phoenix was much much faster.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Localhost shell <
>> universal.localhost@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the quick response.
>>>
>>> Is there any Hive Vs Impala Vs Shark or other tools performance
>>> comparison?
>>>
>>> I am trying to convince folks in my project to use Hbase-Phoenix
>>> combination. I understand the optimizations done by phoenix by using
>>> coprocessors and custom filters.
>>> Hence these performance graphs will help me build a more convincing
>>> argument.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Mujtaba Chohan <mujtaba@apache.org>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Harshit,
>>>>
>>>> Take a look at this. This compares Phoenix 2.2.3 against latest
>>>> 3.0.0-RC and 4.0.0-RC using various schema tables.
>>>> http://phoenix-bin.github.io/client/performance/phoenix-20140324122633.htm
>>>>
>>>> //Mujtaba
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Localhost shell <
>>>> universal.localhost@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hey All,
>>>>>
>>>>> I couldn't find the performance comparison graphs on the apache site.
>>>>> I found few at info at
>>>>> https://github.com/forcedotcom/phoenix/wiki/Performance but it's
>>>>> quite old and also the data and nature of query is also very basic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Query: select count(1) from table over 1M and 5M rows. Data is 3
>>>>> narrow columns. Number of Region Server: 1 (Virtual Machine, HBase heap:
>>>>> 2GB, Processor: 2 cores @ 3.3GHz Xeon)
>>>>>
>>>>> Can anyone point me to some more concrete performance number if
>>>>> available?
>>>>>
>>>>> --Harshit
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message