Prior to my changes, the actual amount of overhead per key was 72 bytes (c.f. http://lists.basho.com/pipermail/riak-users_lists.basho.com/2010-July/001552.html). With the new hashtable we are now using ~40 bytes per key, which includes the overhead of the hash table.
D. On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Alexander Sicular <sicul...@gmail.com>wrote: > Is there a new metric/rule of thumb/guide to use when calculating mem > requirements? I think before this it was something like 40bytes + key size > per key. > > -Alexander > > On Aug 7, 2010, at 11:25 PM, Sean Cribbs wrote: > > > Dave Smith already reduced memory usage by 40% this past week, simply by > changing the hash table implementation. Rest assured he and Justin are > looking for ways to continue improving on that. > > > > Sean Cribbs <s...@basho.com> > > Developer Advocate > > Basho Technologies, Inc. > > http://basho.com/ > > > > On Aug 7, 2010, at 10:39 PM, Wilson MacGyver wrote: > > > >> Is the bitcask key always treated as a string, even if you pass an > interger? > >> > >> trying to think of ways to reduce the ram usage of keys in bitcask. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Omnem crede diem tibi diluxisse supremum. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> riak-users mailing list > >> riak-users@lists.basho.com > >> http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > riak-users mailing list > > riak-users@lists.basho.com > > http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com > > > _______________________________________________ > riak-users mailing list > riak-users@lists.basho.com > http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com >
_______________________________________________ riak-users mailing list riak-users@lists.basho.com http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
