Since each row in my column family has 30 columns, wouldn't this translate to ~8,000 rows per second...or am I misunderstanding something.
Talking in terms of columns, my load test would seem to perform as follows: 100,000 rows / 26 sec * 30 columns/row = 115K columns per second. That's on a dual core, 2.66 GHz laptop, 4GB RAM...single running cassandra node....hector (java) client. Am I interpreting things correctly? - Steve On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:59 PM, aaron morton <aa...@thelastpickle.com>wrote: > To give an idea, last March (2010) I run the a much older Cassandra on 10 > HP blades (dual socket, 4 core, 16GB, 2.5 laptop HDD) and was writing around > 250K columns per second with 500 python processes loading the data from > wikipedia running on another 10 HP blades. > > This was my first out of the box no tuning (other then using sensible batch > updates) test. Since then Cassandra has gotten much faster. > > Hope that helps > Aaron > > On 4 May 2011, at 02:22, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > > > You don't give many details, but I would guess: > > > > - your benchmark is not multithreaded > > - mongodb is not configured for durable writes, so you're really only > > measuring the time for it to buffer it in memory > > - you haven't loaded enough data to hit "mongo's index doesn't fit in > > memory anymore" > > > > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Steve Smith <stevenpsmith...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I am working for client that needs to persist 100K-200K records per > second > >> for later querying. As a proof of concept, we are looking at several > >> options including nosql (Cassandra and MongoDB). > >> I have been running some tests on my laptop (MacBook Pro, 4GB RAM, 2.66 > GHz, > >> Dual Core/4 logical cores) and have not been happy with the results. > >> The best I have been able to accomplish is 100K records in approximately > 30 > >> seconds. Each record has 30 columns, mostly made up of integers. I > have > >> tried both the Hector and Pelops APIs, and have tried writing in batches > >> versus one at a time. The times have not varied much. > >> I am using the out of the box configuration for Cassandra, and while I > know > >> using 1 disk will have an impact on performance, I would expect to see > >> better write numbers than I am. > >> As a point of reference, the same test using MongoDB I was able to > >> accomplish 100K records in 3.5 seconds. > >> Any tips would be appreciated. > >> > >> - Steve > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Jonathan Ellis > > Project Chair, Apache Cassandra > > co-founder of DataStax, the source for professional Cassandra support > > http://www.datastax.com > >
