Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
HBase >> mail # user >> Performance between HBaseClient scan and HFileReaderV2


+
Jerry Lam 2013-12-23, 20:18
+
Tom Hood 2013-12-30, 02:09
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Performance between HBaseClient scan and HFileReaderV2
Hi Tom,

Good point. Note that I also ran the HBaseClient performance test several
times (as you can see from the chart). The caching should also benefit the
second time I ran the HBaseClient performance test not just benefitting the
HFileReaderV2 test.

I still don't understand what makes the HBaseClient performs so poorly in
comparison to access directly HDFS. I can understand maybe a factor of 2
(even that it is too much) but a factor of 8 is quite unreasonable.

Any hint?

Jerry

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Tom Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I'm also new to HBase and am not familiar with HFileReaderV2.  However, in
> your description, you didn't mention anything about clearing the linux OS
> cache between tests.  That might be why you're seeing the big difference if
> you ran the HBaseClient test first, it may have warmed the OS cache and
> then HFileReaderV2 benefited from it.  Just a guess...
>
> -- Tom
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Jerry Lam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hello HBase users,
> >
> > I just ran a very simple performance test and would like to see if what I
> > experienced make sense.
> >
> > The experiment is as follows:
> > - I filled a hbase region with 700MB data (each row has roughly 45
> columns
> > and the size is 20KB for the entire row)
> > - I configured the region to hold 4GB (therefore no split occurs)
> > - I ran compactions after the data is loaded and make sure that there is
> > only 1 region in the table under test.
> > - No other table exists in the hbase cluster because this is a DEV
> > environment
> > - I'm using HBase 0.92.1
> >
> > The test is very basic. I use HBaseClient to scan the entire region to
> > retrieve all rows and all columns in the table, just iterating all
> KeyValue
> > pairs until it is done. It took about 1 minute 22 sec to complete. (Note
> > that I disable block cache and uses caching size about 10000).
> >
> > I ran another test using HFileReaderV2 and scan the entire region to
> > retrieve all rows and all columns, just iterating all keyValue pairs
> until
> > it is done. It took 11 sec.
> >
> > The performance difference is dramatic (almost 8 times faster using
> > HFileReaderV2).
> >
> > I want to know why the difference is so big or I didn't configure HBase
> > properly. From this experiment, HDFS can deliver the data efficiently so
> it
> > is not the bottleneck.
> >
> > Any help is appreciated!
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> >
>
+
Vladimir Rodionov 2014-01-02, 18:30
+
Jean-Marc Spaggiari 2014-01-02, 18:35
+
Jerry Lam 2014-01-02, 21:32
+
Sergey Shelukhin 2014-01-02, 21:42
+
Sergey Shelukhin 2014-01-02, 21:43
+
Enis Söztutar 2014-01-02, 22:02
+
Jerry Lam 2014-01-02, 23:31
+
Ted Yu 2014-01-02, 23:35
+
lars hofhansl 2014-01-02, 21:45
+
lars hofhansl 2014-01-02, 21:44
+
Jerry Lam 2014-01-02, 23:53
+
Stack 2014-01-02, 16:23
+
Jerry Lam 2014-01-02, 17:18
+
Andrew Purtell 2014-01-02, 17:47
+
lars hofhansl 2014-01-02, 18:54
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB