Hi Yogi, Both benchmarks go to different tables. I originally wanted to just write a lot of data into an empty table and then evaluate what compression ratio I can expect when I ran into the performance problem.
I am sorry, I forgot to mention this: I did not figure out how to create a table using AST (it wasn't given in the example that I modified https://github.com/Netflix/astyanax/blob/master/astyanax-examples/src/main/java/com/netflix/astyanax/examples/AstClient.java). So the AstClient.java benchmark assumes that the table already exists. cheers, Rüdiger On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Yogi Nerella <ynerella...@gmail.com> wrote: > Rudger, > > I am trying this on 2.0.5 to see, but both Scala code and AST code are > going to different tables? Can you give the exact AST code you are trying? > > Yogi > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Sylvain Lebresne > <sylv...@datastax.com>wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Rüdiger Klaehn <rkla...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> Am I doing something wrong, or is this a fundamental limitation of CQL. >>> >> >> Neither. I believe you are running into >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6737, which is a bug, a >> performance bug, which we should and will fix. So thanks for the report. If >> you could give a shot to the patch on that issue and check if it helps, >> that would definitively be much appreciated. >> >> There is absolutely no fundamental reason why a CQL operation would be >> more than 10 times slower than it's thrift equivalent, such dramatic >> difference is indicative of a bug, something obviously wrong. >> >> -- >> Sylvain >> > >
