That's reassuring to know then, thanks*
<http://www.loomlearning.com/>
Jonathan Langevin
Systems Administrator
Loom Inc.
Wilmington, NC: (910) 241-0433 - jlange...@loomlearning.com -
www.loomlearning.com - Skype: intel352
*
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Justin Sheehy <jus...@basho.com> wrote:
> Jeremiah,
>
> You were essentially correct. A "targeted" MR does not have to search
> for the data, and does not slow down with database size. It is a
> bucket-sweeping MR that currently has that behavior.
>
> -Justin
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Jeremiah Peschka
> <jeremiah.pesc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would have suspected that an MR job where you supply a Bucket, Key pair
> would be just as fast as a Get request. Shows what I know.
> > ---
> > Jeremiah Peschka
> > Founder, Brent Ozar PLF, LLC
> >
> > On Jul 29, 2011, at 1:37 AM, Antonio Rohman Fernandez wrote:
> >
> >> MapReduce ( or a simply Map ) gets really slow when database has a
> significant amount of data ( or distributed over several servers ). Get
> instead is always faster as Riak doesn't have to search for the key ( you
> tell Riak exactly where to GET the data in your url )
> >>
> >> Rohman
> >>
> >> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 23:43:06 +0400, m...@mawhrin.net wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> (I looked at various places for the information, however I could not
> >>> find anything that would answer the question. It's not completely
> ruled
> >>> out that not all places were checked though :))
> >>>
> >>> I use PB erlang interface to access the database. Given a bucket name
> >>> and a key, the value can easily be extracted using:
> >>>
> >>> {ok, Object} = riakc_pb_socket:get(Conn, Bucket, Key),
> >>> Value = riakc_obj:get_value(Object)
> >>>
> >>> Alternatively, a mapred (actually, just map) request could be issued:
> >>>
> >>> {ok, [{_, Value}]} = riakc_pb_socket:mapred(Conn, [
> >>> {Bucket, Key}
> >>> ], [
> >>> {map, {modfun, riak_kv, map_object_value}, none, true}
> >>> ])
> >>>
> >>> I would expect that the result is the same while in the second case,
> the
> >>> amount of data transferred to the client is smaller (which might be
> good
> >>> for certain situations).
> >>>
> >>> So the [open] question is: are there any reasons for using the first
> >>> approach over the second?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Misha
> >>>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Antonio Rohman Fernandez
> >> CEO, Founder & Lead Engineer
> >> roh...@mahalostudio.com Projects
> >> MaruBatsu.es
> >> PupCloud.com
> >> Wedding Album
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
