You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'm investigating to improve our current internal file format to add more flexibility.
It is basically based on a tree representation, each node can contain some data.
So I implemented an unqlite version where I use one key/value for the tree node (few byte) and one for the data.
Here are the results:
10000 nodes with 1024 bytes => 10240000 bytes
unqlite: 36511744 bytes W:404017us R:210433us
legacy: 10420043 bytes W:12735us R:11907us
file size: 3.5x
write time: 31.7x
read time: 17.67x
I think 4096 is closer to the internal unqlite chunk size, so let's try it:
10000 nodes * 4096 data = 40960000 bytes
unqlite: 89309184 W:850054us R:455387us
legacy: 41140043 W:30292us R:20585us
file size: 2.7x
write time: 28.06x
read time: 22.12x
So, I'm very disappointed with the result in both file size and time.
I understand there will be an overhead for file size and time but that looks too much in this case.
Any comment ?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi,
I'm investigating to improve our current internal file format to add more flexibility.
It is basically based on a tree representation, each node can contain some data.
So I implemented an unqlite version where I use one key/value for the tree node (few byte) and one for the data.
Here are the results:
10000 nodes with 1024 bytes => 10240000 bytes
unqlite: 36511744 bytes W:404017us R:210433us
legacy: 10420043 bytes W:12735us R:11907us
file size: 3.5x
write time: 31.7x
read time: 17.67x
I think 4096 is closer to the internal unqlite chunk size, so let's try it:
10000 nodes * 4096 data = 40960000 bytes
unqlite: 89309184 W:850054us R:455387us
legacy: 41140043 W:30292us R:20585us
file size: 2.7x
write time: 28.06x
read time: 22.12x
So, I'm very disappointed with the result in both file size and time.
I understand there will be an overhead for file size and time but that looks too much in this case.
Any comment ?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: