S Ahmed 2013-01-22, 18:38
lars hofhansl 2013-01-22, 19:03
Kevin Odell 2013-01-22, 19:06
S Ahmed 2013-01-22, 19:12
Ian Varley 2013-01-22, 19:23
Andrew Purtell 2013-01-22, 19:32
Jean-Daniel Cryans 2013-01-22, 18:46
Just to be clear, I realize benchmarks are not always the best way to gauge
performance etc. since there are many factors involved, but I have
generally seen a big diff in write throughput between the two (of the
bencharks that I have read).
For example: http://www.cubrid.org/blog/dev-platform/nosql-benchmarking/(chart:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:38 AM, S Ahmed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've read articles online where I see cassandra doing like 20K writers
> > second, and hbase around 2-3K.
> Numbers with 0 context don't mean much, if at all.
> > I understand both systems have their strenghts, but I am curious as to
> > is holding hbase from reaching similiar results?
> > Is it HDFS that is the issue? Or hbase does certain things (to its
> > advantage) that slows the write path down?
> Our writes are generally quite fast, I think at the moment some
> improvements can be made at the client level. I did some tests last
> year and I could get better throughput with the asynchbase client
> compared to the normal Java client because the former has call queues
> per region server. Both tests were using the same region servers,
> uploading the same data set.
Ted Yu 2013-01-22, 19:05
Asaf Mesika 2013-01-22, 20:57
anil gupta 2013-01-23, 07:08