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

Switch to Threaded View
HBase >> mail # user >> strange PerformanceEvaluation behaviour

Copy link to this message
Re: strange PerformanceEvaluation behaviour
Thanks for digging.

Please file Jira's for these issues.

On Feb 15, 2012, at 1:53 AM, "Oliver Meyn (GBIF)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 2012-02-15, at 9:09 AM, Oliver Meyn (GBIF) wrote:
>> On 2012-02-15, at 7:32 AM, Stack wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> 2) With that same randomWrite command line above, I would expect a resulting table with 10 * (1024 * 1024) rows (so 10485700 = roughly 10M rows).  Instead what I'm seeing is that the randomWrite job reports writing that many rows (exactly) but running rowcounter against the table reveals only 6549899 rows.  A second attempt to build the table produces slightly different results (e.g. 6627689).  I see a similar discrepancy when using 50 instead of 10 clients (~35% smaller than expected).  Key collision could explain it, but it seems pretty unlikely (given I only need e.g. 10M keys from a potential 2B).
>>> I just tried it here and got similar result.  I wonder if its the
>>> randomWrite?  What if you do sequentialWrite, do you get our 10M?
>> Thanks for checking into this stack - when using sequentialWrite I get the expected 10485700 rows.  I'll hack around a bit on the PE to count the number of collisions, and try to think of a reasonable solution.
> So hacking around reveals that key collision is indeed the problem.  I thought the modulo part of the getRandomRow method was suspect but while removing it improved the behaviour (I got ~8M rows instead of ~6.6M) it didn't fix it completely.  Since that's really what UUIDs are for I gave that a shot (i.e UUID.randomUUID()) and sure enough now I get the full 10M rows.  Those are 16-byte keys now though, instead of the 10-byte that the integers produced.  But because we're testing scan performance I think using a sequentially written table would probably be cheating and so will stick with randomWrite with slightly bigger keys.  That means it's a little harder to compare to the results that other people get, but at least I know my internal tests are apples to apples.
> Oh and I removed the outer 10x loop and that produced the desired number of mappers (ie what I passed in on the commandline) but made no difference in the key generation/collision story.
> Should I file bugs for these 2 issues?
> Thanks,
> Oliver