question Re: On processing Large volumes tables MR is performing better than TEZ, But All forums says its TEZ that always better than MR. Please suggest. in Archives of Support Questions (Read Only)

On processing Large volumes tables MR is performing better than TEZ, But All forums says its TEZ that always better than MR. Please suggest.

vipulksaath — Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:45:40 GMT

We are doing some analysis on MR vs TEZ. TEZ is doing better than MR on small and mild data volumes but MR is beating TEZ on large volumes, We have seen it multiple times on different test beds. Please suggest

Re: On processing Large volumes tables MR is performing better than TEZ, But All forums says its TEZ that always better than MR. Please suggest.

cstanca — Fri, 17 Mar 2017 08:54:13 GMT

@Vipul Choudhary

1) Please define actual size and performance numbers that you encountered.

2) Clarify what test beds you are referring and how did you use them?

3) Clarify what is the type of test case you execute? It is important to clarify because some tests can be disk I/O intensive, others can be memory intensive.

After clarifying all the above, we can state that driving a bike is sometimes faster than driving a Ferrari. That may be because the bike is better suited for niche cases where there is a little space for a car to go through (narrow roads, etc). I would not generalize that easy. I am not sure about anything stated as "is always better". There is always an exception. Anyhow, you can set the desired engine the session level, if you wish to use MR or Tez. Thus, for cases where MR performs better, use it. It is not like you have to code it when you execute a Hive query.

Re: On processing Large volumes tables MR is performing better than TEZ, But All forums says its TEZ that always better than MR. Please suggest.

pminovic — Fri, 17 Mar 2017 09:12:02 GMT

Great analogy, but I only have a bike! 🙂 I'd like to be able to say "set my.transport.engine=ferrari;" and it here it is, at my front door!

Re: On processing Large volumes tables MR is performing better than TEZ, But All forums says its TEZ that always better than MR. Please suggest.

vipulksaath — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:23:36 GMT

1)Please define actual size and performance numbers that you encountered.

Ans.

Data Volume	Time elapsed for TEZ	Average Time MR	Time elapsed for MR	Average Time for TEZ
1900 records	46.350 secs	41.626 secs	63.666 secs	56.176 secs
40.341 secs	55.633 secs
38.189 secs	49.230 secs
91914 records	32.049 secs	32.097 secs	52.920 secs	51.236 secs
32.088 secs	49.030 secs
32.156 secs	51.760 secs
993168 records	850.01 secs	861.781 secs	611.625 secs	635.781 secs
865.230 secs	691.751 secs
872.110 secs	672.285 secs
868.995 secs	567.466 secs

2)Clarify what test beds you are referring and how did you use them?

Ans. In above statistics table:

In Operation 1 is a creating lateral view on a small data set.

In Operation 2 is joining 3 tables of intermediate data volume.

In Operation 3 is joining 4 tables of large data volume in inner query and aggregation happening on top of that.

3)Clarify what is the type of test case you execute? It is important to clarify because some tests can be disk I/O intensive, others can be memory intensive.

1.Ans. Above jobs ran in parallel i.e. 10 jobs in parallel on TEZ mode and 10 jobs in parallel on MR mode.

2.Above results are output of multiple test iterations and performed on different test beds.

Re: On processing Large volumes tables MR is performing better than TEZ, But All forums says its TEZ that always better than MR. Please suggest.

vipulksaath — Sat, 01 Apr 2017 23:23:27 GMT

@Constantin Stanca Any thoughts on this?