Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
HBase >> mail # user >> endpoint coprocessor performance


Copy link to this message
-
Re: endpoint coprocessor performance
Please disregard. James may have nailed it and that's not version
dependent.

On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, Andrew Purtell wrote:

> Do you have timing results for an Apache HBase release? Our last release
> was 0.94.5.
>
> On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, Kim Hamilton wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> I've been lurking here for a while, so thanks for all the valuable tips
>> and
>> guidance you've given so far.
>>
>> I'm running some experiments to understand where to use coprocessors. One
>> interesting scenario is computing distinct values. I ran performance tests
>> with two distinct value implementations: one using endpoint coprocessors,
>> and one using just scans (computing distinct values client side only). I
>> noticed that the endpoint coprocessor implementation averaged 80 ms slower
>> than the scan implementation. Details of that are below for anyone
>> interested.
>>
>> To drill into the performance, I instrumented the code and ultimately
>> deployed a no-op endpoint coprocessor, to look at the overhead of simply
>> calling it. I'm measuring around 100ms for calling my empty, no-op
>> endpoint
>> coprocessor.
>>
>> I need to do more tests, but I believe my tests are leading me to similar
>> conclusions drawn here:
>> http://hbase-coprocessor-experiments.blogspot.com/2011/05/extending.html
>>
>> I.e. if the query/scan is selective enough (I'll go out on a limb and
>> estimate 50-100 rows), then it's better to just perform a scan and compute
>> client side. Endpoint coprocessors will make sense for larger result sets
>> and/or scans that hit multiple regions.
>>
>> Before going too far, I wanted to check if anyone in this group has
>> suggestions. I.e. perhaps there are just some configuration options I've
>> not uncovered. Does this 100ms latency sound correct?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kim
>>
>>
>> *Detailed results of distinct value comparison, just FYI*
>>
>> Using 0.92.1-cdh4.1.0
>> Scan result size ~50-100
>> Row size 1kb, but after filtering for only desired columns, 380 bytes
>>
>> *with coprocessors*
>> AverageLatency(ms), 176.1353
>> MinLatency(ms), 42
>> MaxLatency(ms), 2368
>> 95thPercentileLatency(ms), 321
>> 99thPercentileLatency(ms), 422
>>
>> *scan-only, compute distinct values client side*
>> AverageLatency(ms), 92.8165
>> MinLatency(ms), 4
>> MaxLatency(ms), 986
>> 95thPercentileLatency(ms), 253
>> 99thPercentileLatency(ms), 356
>>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>    - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
>

--
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)