|
|
|
|
|
by hyc_symas
4675 days ago
|
|
Yes, I changed the key format to allow using the MDB_APPEND option for bulk loading. (That's only usable in LMDB for sequential inserts.) Otherwise, for random inserts, things will be much slower. (Again, refer to the microbench to see the huge difference this makes.) If you don't have your data ordered in advance then this comparison is invalid, and we'd have to just refer to the much slower random insert results. Still don't understand what happened to sparkey at 100M. The same thing happens using snappy, and the compressed filesize is much smaller than LMDB's, so it can't be pagecache exhaustion. Also suspicious of the actual time measurements. Both of these programs are single-threaded so there's no way the CPU time measurement should be greater than the wall-clock time. I may take a run at using getrusage and gettimeofday instead, these clock_gettime results look flaky. |
|
Also, I think it would be more interesting to see a comparison with lmdb using random writes instead of sequential.
As for the cpu time measurement, the wallclock is very inprecise, so it could be some small quantum larger than cpu time, but it should never be more than the system specific wall clock quantum.