X-BeenThere: nosql-discussion@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.90.20.3 with SMTP id 3ls685521agt.2.p; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 
	10:06:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.90.214.3 with SMTP id m3mr6785021agg.5.1258999593810;
        Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:06:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.90.214.3 with SMTP id m3mr6785015agg.5.1258999593545;
        Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:06:33 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <rob.tw...@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-yx0-f137.google.com (mail-yx0-f137.google.com [209.85.210.137])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 24si633565yxe.3.2009.11.23.10.06.33;
        Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:06:33 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rob.tw...@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.137 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.137;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rob.tw...@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.137 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rob.tw...@gmail.com
Received: by mail-yx0-f137.google.com with SMTP id 1so3203198yxe.3
        for <nosql-discussion@googlegroups.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:06:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.101.25.3 with SMTP id c3mr187649anj.32.1258999593459; Mon, 23 
	Nov 2009 10:06:33 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:06:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <db638224-e304-426f-985b-50a3b64ce615@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>
X-IP: 81.149.149.152
References: <908fea4f-ddbc-441c-83f7-9b0fa13276e2@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> 
	<db638224-e304-426f-985b-50a3b64ce615@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.1.5) 
	Gecko/20091102 Firefox/3.5.5 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: <5b153a10-f0b9-4de8-acf6-34a7258fc88e@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: 3n+1 NoSQL/Key-Value/Schema-Free/Schema-Less Database Benchmark
From: rtweed <rob.tw...@gmail.com>
To: NOSQL <nosql-discussion@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Just for fun I repeated Bhaskar's benchmark on my "reference" Asus Eee
701

(900 MHz Celeron, 2Gb memory Ubuntu 9.04 UNR, with GT.M running in a
VMWare/Ubuntu 9.10 VM, using a 4Gb SD drive with 512Mb memory
allocated)

1 100000 8 351 18  (average of 3 runs)

8 parallel execution streams, total time 18 seconds

So if I've understood Bhaskar's figures, that means it was doing
100,000 database updates @  5,555 per second and 800,000 database
reads at 44,444 per second

Not a bad demo of NoSQL performance on a piece of throwaway tat? :-)

Rob


On 23 Nov, 02:53, "K.S.  Bhaskar" <ksbhas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I created the benchmark and ran it on my work laptop today. =A0The
> results are athttp://docs.google.com/View?id=3Ddd5f3337_13hbmxpjhj
>
> In summary, I was able to get fairly consistently, update rates of
> 25-30,000 updates per second along with 250-300,000 reads per second
> with eight concurrent processes working in parallel on the problem on
> a dual core laptop with 4GB RAM on a jfs file system on a 200GB
> 7,200rpm SATA drive using GT.M V5.3-004A on Kubuntu 9.10. =A0I ran the
> database with "before image journaling" which provides for backward
> recovery (i.e., in place recovery of the database from the journal
> without the need to restore a backup).
>
> I did not spend much time tuning database parameters to maximize
> throughput. =A0That's a task for another day.
>
> Questions about how the program works are welcome as are questions and
> comments on the results.
>
> Regards
> -- Bhaskar
>
> On Nov 21, 1:15=A0pm, "K.S. =A0Bhaskar" <ksbhas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Athttp://docs.google.com/View?id=3Ddd5f3337_12fzjpqbc2Ihave created a
> > proposal for a benchmark designed to allow for apples to apples
> > comparisons of NoSQL databases using features that should allow many
> > if not most NoSQL engines to be benchmarked. =A0Comments are welcome.
> > I'll update the document to accommodate useful suggestions and also
> > create & run a GT.M benchmark.
>
> > Regards
> > -- Bhaskar