I’m not sure if i shared this to the user list… I’m doing a massive series on C* 5.0 performance and how it relates to node density and cost. First post is up now.
http://rustyrazorblade.com/post/2025/03-streaming/ The benefit any given feature depends on a lot of factors. Hardware and workload varies so much there’s no single easy number to throw out. In my testing I’ve found offheap trie memtables to improve performance by 2-4x, especially when you have low latency requirements. The reduction in GC pause time and frequency means you can achieve much higher throughput than the default memtable implementation. Jon On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 4:54 PM Patrick McFadin <pmcfa...@gmail.com> wrote: > And I would be remiss if I didn't mention this. > > If you are doing any testing on your own... SHARE! When we say "Your > mileage may vary" it's a great contribution to the project to share 1) Your > use case 2) How you tested 3) What you found. > > Blog post. An email to user@. A social media post. It all counts. If you > need help, just hit me up on email or slack.Happy to assist in any way. > > Patrick > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 6:28 AM Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> You may find the charts on the following JIRAs interesting: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-17240 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-17240?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20and%20text%20~%20%27trie%20memtables%27> >> >> That covers the memtables. The combination of UCS (new compaction >> strategy), memtables, and trie indexes is covered a bit in this youtube >> video here: >> https://youtu.be/eKxj6s4vzmI?list=PLqcm6qE9lgKKls90MlpejceYUU_0qVnWa&t=2075 >> >> All told, Branimir's work here is a Big Deal. We really should invest the >> time in a blog post with more clarity on how impactful these changes are >> for data density and performance; thanks for raising this question as it >> helps clarify that. >> >> ~Josh >> >> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025, at 10:35 AM, Jiri Steuer (EIT) wrote: >> >> Hi FMH, >> >> >> >> I haven't seen these official tests and that was the reason I did these >> tests with the official tools. Regards >> >> >> >> J. Steuer >> >> >> >> >> This item's classification is Internal. It was created by and is in >> property of EmbedIT. Do not distribute outside of the organization. >> From: FMH <fmhab...@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 19, 2025 3:14 PM >> *To:* Cassandra Support-user <user@cassandra.apache.org> >> *Subject:* [External]Cassandra 5.0: Any Official Tests Supporting 'Free >> Performance Gains' >> >> >> >> >> This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with >> links and attachments. >> Please report all suspicious e-mails to helpd...@embedit.com >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> >> As I'm evaluating to upgrade to C* 4 or 5, one statement caught my >> attention for the 5 release ( >> https://cassandra.apache.org/_/blog/Apache-Cassandra-5.0-Announcement.html >> ): >> >> "Trie Memtables and Trie SSTables These low-level optimizations yield >> impressive gains in memory usage and storage efficiency, providing a "free" >> performance" >> >> >> >> I have only found a single doc show-casing empirical evidence for such >> performance gains. As per this document, compared to version 4.1, C* 5 had >> ... >> >> - 38% better performance and 26% better response time for write operations >> >> - 12% better performance and 9% better response time for read operations >> >> >> >> I'm just wondering if there has been any official test results supporting >> the claim for 'free performance'. >> >> >> >> I'm trying to corroborate the test results described above. >> >> >> >> >> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/performance-comparison-between-cassandra-version-41-5-jiri-steuer-pxbtf/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------- >> Thank you >> >> >>
