ALL COVERED TOPICS

NoSQL Benchmarks NoSQL use cases NoSQL Videos NoSQL Hybrid Solutions NoSQL Presentations Big Data Hadoop MapReduce Pig Hive Flume Oozie Sqoop HDFS ZooKeeper Cascading Cascalog BigTable Cassandra HBase Hypertable Couchbase CouchDB MongoDB OrientDB RavenDB Jackrabbit Terrastore Amazon DynamoDB Redis Riak Project Voldemort Tokyo Cabinet Kyoto Cabinet memcached Amazon SimpleDB Datomic MemcacheDB M/DB GT.M Amazon Dynamo Dynomite Mnesia Yahoo! PNUTS/Sherpa Neo4j InfoGrid Sones GraphDB InfiniteGraph AllegroGraph MarkLogic Clustrix CouchDB Case Studies MongoDB Case Studies NoSQL at Adobe NoSQL at Facebook NoSQL at Twitter

NAVIGATE MAIN CATEGORIES

Close

Riak Performance of Link Walking vs MapReduce

If you are asked to compare (or you just wonder about) the performance of link walking and map-reduce in Riak keep in mind the following details of how the two mechanism are implemented:

The biggest difference I see is that the link-walk uses an Erlang function where your MapReduce query uses a Javascript function (link-walking is implemented as a MapReduce query internally).

Serializing/deserializing to JSON as well as contention for Javascript VMs likely accounts for the lost time.

My emphasis on Bryan Fink’s email from Riak’s mailing list.

Original title and link: Riak Performance of Link Walking vs MapReduce (NoSQL database©myNoSQL)